Big Media’s Biggest Failure?
[Posted by Karl]
Credit Michael Kinsley for a little honesty:
I’m sitting here in a pile of reports and studies by think tanks, public-policy schools, the Office of Management and Budget, and self-appointed grandee fiscal crusaders. They all make the same, tiresomely familiar point: that this can’t go on. ***
There are a dozen ways to look at the national debt and the annual government deficit, and they all lead to varying degrees of panic. What’s especially scary about our fiscal situation is that everybody knows the facts and concedes the implication, but nobody is doing anything about it ***
And the national debt is just a fraction of the problem. State and local governments, unlike the national government in Washington, cannot print money, and many states have constitutions that forbid them to run a deficit. Nevertheless, they will be losing, together, about $140 billion this year. ***
Debt is everywhere you look. Here’s a short inside piece in The New York Times Magazine about state and local unfunded pension obligations for retired employees. They add up to between $1 trillion and $3 trillion. Until that article, I had given no thought whatsoever to shortfalls in state employee pension funds. You?
Well, yeah. And Matt Welch points out that Reason magazine has been all over the problem. And if you’re reading a conservative blog like this, you probably knew about it from Reason, or the Weekly Standard, or the American Spectator, Fox News, City Journal, the CATO Institute, National Review, the Heritage Foundation, Rush Limbaugh or any of the other right-leaning media that have been discussing it for years, but prominently for about a year.
In fairness, after the Pew Center on the States reported on the trillion-dollar gap in state employees’ retirement benefits, establishment media including Reuters, NPR and even the NYT did stories on it. But it is fair to say that if someone as entrenched in the center-left establishment punditocracy as Michael Kinsley had not heard about the issue until recently — despite ongoing budget crises in states like California, New Jersey, Illinois and New York — it has not gotten the sort of media coverage that might be expected of a $1-3 trillion dollar problem.
I doubt that anyone is very surprised at this, because — as Kinsley notes — we are accustomed to hearing about our public debt and having the political establishment not merely ignore the problem, but accelerate it. If the commonly reported national debt of $14 trillion — and $106 trillion in liabilities for Social Security and Medicare — are not treated as one of our biggest political issue for decades to come, what’s a few trillion more for state employees? However, in a climate where even Pres. Obama’s budget director warned that our debt is “serious and ultimately unsustainable,” perhaps more should be expected of the establishment media.
Indeed, our unsustainable financial situation led to the creation of a Tea Party movement — one of the biggest political developments in America over the past two years. It would seem to be the perfect news peg for ongoing media coverage of our government’s fiscal irresponsibility. Of course, it didn’t work out quite that way, did it? Instead, the establishment media ignored, then attacked the Tea Party movement — first as astroturf, then as racist, as Birthers, as hypocritical (for not having formed when the problem was less dire, and for gullibly expecting the government to make good on current entitlement promises or reform them before adding new ones), etc. The establishment media’s coverage of the Tea Party often seems devoted to discussing anything other than the issues at the heart of the movement.
Thus, the establishment media reveals itself, not as the people’s watchdog against irresponsible government, but as the irresponsible government’s guard dog against the people. It is ground zero for manufacturing center-left consent. After all, how could the establishment have seriously discussed passing the trillion-dollar ObamaCare behemoth, when so much of the funding comes from “reductions” in Medicare and Medicaid spending that is unsustainable in the first instance? How could the media have gone along with the laughable CBO estimate that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit (based on assumptions the CBO admits are unrealistic), if they had to take our ginormous public debt seriously? How could they float an economy-crushing cap-and-tax scheme to combat global warming, or climate change, or climate disruption, or whatever it’s being called today, if everyone was forced to acknowledge how far government has already promised beyond its means?
More to the point, when the President’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform reports its recommendations (after the election, in a display of the very cynicism Kinsley bemoans), there will be a push for another Beltway deal. The GOP will be expected to accept tax increases (which won’t fix the problem) in return for the Democrats agreeing to future spending cuts that never happen, if past is prologue. If the establishment media had to honestly address the nature and scale of the public debt, it could not take business as usual seriously. But the establishment media is in the business of business as usual, even when the business as usual business is bad. Thus, they stick their heads in the sand, impugn the motives of everyone who does not… and attack the right-leaning media as focusing on unimportant, fringe issues.
–Karl
UPDATE BY PATTERICO: This is a classic post. I nodded in agreement throughout. Print it out and frame it. I’ll be returning to it again and again.
This governor, has restored fiscal balance in his state. Wonder why the media ignore him! Hmmm…..
Patricia (9c62d9) — 9/22/2010 @ 8:17 amPatricia – It is not just the MFM that ignores him. Team R went bugf@cknutz when he had the audacity to state that we should focus on the economics, and call a truce on social issues.
JD (9c0e35) — 9/22/2010 @ 8:24 amYeah, I remember that. I agree with him. Maybe I’ll move to Indiana!
Patricia (9c62d9) — 9/22/2010 @ 8:28 amThanks Karl. I too was stunned by Kinsley admission that he hadn’t really given any thought to the effect that unfunded pensions will have on the federal government, states, and municipalities. There have already been several large companies who have defaulted on pensions. For someone like Kinsley, who styles himself a public intellectual, to have ignored this festering problem for the past decade leads me to believe that he is not the deep thinker that he would have us believe. Of course, those of us who read the LA Times while he was opinion page editor had already seen though the tortoise-shell glasses and the nasally academic whine and taken a truer sense of the smarts of the man.
JVW (eccfd6) — 9/22/2010 @ 8:30 amJVW – Wasn’t the Senate trying to push an idea that would give union under-funded or un-funded pensions certain guarantees under the federal government?
I would gladly welcome you as a neighbor, Patricia.
JD (9c0e35) — 9/22/2010 @ 8:37 amPeople have been paying attention to Daniels and his record, and I’d say he has a decent shot at the nomination — especially if Christie makes good on his threat to stay out. Add Rudy at the bottom of the ticket for the national security cred and I’d say you’d have one hell of a winning ticket.
Sean P (4fde41) — 9/22/2010 @ 8:38 amSean P – I wish I could share your enthusiasm, but the socon wing showed, quite clearly, what they thought of focusing on fiscal matters.
JD (9c0e35) — 9/22/2010 @ 8:40 amTruce, implies surrender, he should have known that was going to be a reaction, to using that word.
ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/22/2010 @ 8:49 amalthough it was probably overblown,
Our leaders, in government and media, got their training at schools with god-like endowments. They view the treasury as an endless source of goodies. They are burdened with the task of spending it.
Spending is hard-wired into them, as seen with the mayor of Bell, CA.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 9/22/2010 @ 8:50 amOur esteemed guest host wrote:
Well, of course they did, because the TEA Partiers are proposing solutions to the problem that not only are the exact opposite of what the edumacated elites want, but call into question the wisdom of those elites. Our “political class” seems united in seeking some elusive, but clever and inspired, solution to our fiscal problems; the TEA Party has come up with that simplest of solutions: stop spending so fornicating much money!
And for all of the contortions through which the elites would take us, the TEA Party has come up with the only idea that works. If our oh-so-well-intentioned leadership class can’t figure out the solution, while the uneducated rubes could, why do we need those elites?
The sensible Dana (3e4784) — 9/22/2010 @ 8:51 amTruce implies surrender? Really?
JD (9c0e35) — 9/22/2010 @ 8:56 amI don’t believe Kinsley, for the sole reason that while Orzag was hacking his way via outright lying about the deficit problem, Elmendorf was saying directly the opposite of whatever assumptions he was stating. Simply put, he chose to ignore the sole individual who isn’t accountable to POTUS, although Obama surely tried to browbeat him into submission. He knew all along, and for him to suggest otherwise means he thinks of his readership as fools.
Dmac (d61c0d) — 9/22/2010 @ 9:03 amI also think Daniels has a real shot at the top spot – his stock has been rising for months now. My wife (ardent Dem in most instances) has really warmed to him after seeing him on the TV talkers – because he’s geniune and can talk without a teleprompter. BTW, you can see the reality show about him traveling the state on his motorcycle on YouTube – he comes across as human and fundamentally decent as he stays overnight in trailer park homes, rural farmhouses, etc. The man puts himself in unccomfortable situations, yet still comes out clean.
Dmac (d61c0d) — 9/22/2010 @ 9:07 am“Thus, the establishment media reveals itself, not as the people’s watchdog against irresponsible government, but as the irresponsible government’s guard dog against the people.”
And it is easier to find deficits than weapons of mass destruction.
imdw (14df54) — 9/22/2010 @ 9:08 am“…For someone like Kinsley, who styles himself a public intellectual…”
Liberal Intellectuals are not only unaware of economic issues, they are woefully ignorant of economics.
AD-RtR/OS! (156830) — 9/22/2010 @ 9:09 amComment by imdw — 9/22/2010 @ 9:08 am
The deficit, and the resulting inflation that this megadeficit administration will trigger, are “weapons of mass destruction”, which you would realize if you had lived through the Carter Stagflation.
AD-RtR/OS! (156830) — 9/22/2010 @ 9:12 am…inflation has robbed more people of more money (value) than all the Willie Sutton’s in history.
AD-RtR/OS! (156830) — 9/22/2010 @ 9:14 amExcellent post. Lots to digest.
On the side…
JD #2 “focus on the economics and call a truce on the social issues”
Except that, in a sense, the social issues are precisely what cause the economics.
For example (to greatly oversimplify): feminist abortion policies help cause reduced native population which helps cause labor shortfalls which encourage illegal immigration which causes higher social spending and worse schools which further depress native population increase which encourages further immigration which…
Ya get it?
d. in c. (fc59fb) — 9/22/2010 @ 9:22 am“…inflation has robbed more people of more money (value) than all the Willie Sutton’s in history.”
Where does the money go?
imdw (150cd7) — 9/22/2010 @ 9:31 amIf you’re winning, you don’t need a truce. If you’re losing, you need one badly.
If neither side is winning, they may both want a truce, also known as “pausing to reload”.
So, yeah, asking for a truce implies weakness in your position.
LarryD (f22286) — 9/22/2010 @ 9:32 amI agree that it is hard to believe someone saying these things is truthful unless they realize they’ve been grossly intellectually lazy and willing to “drink the koolaid”. I know zilch about economics and business, but I know this is true anyway.
The only reason this may not be “Big Media’s” biggest failure is because they have so many others in competition.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 9/22/2010 @ 9:33 amA meme is born:
m (3d8feb) — 9/22/2010 @ 9:56 amReally? What solutions are the Tea Party proposing?
It’s easy to wave a sign and argue that the government needs to get rid of the deficit, cut spending, be fiscally responsible, blah blah blah. I think agreement with those goals extend beyond the Tea Party movement.
But how to get rid of the deficit? If you’re not going to increase taxes, then what, specifically, should be cut? On this, the Tea Party (as a whole) is remarkably silent.
Complaining about the state we are in is not the same as “proposing solutions”, and I get a little weary of people thinking the Tea Party has the answer when in reality, all it does is scream about the problem.
Kman (d25c82) — 9/22/2010 @ 10:03 amI was surprised not to see Mitch Daniels brought up in the Palin thread, Patricia.
He is a perfect example of the sort of candidate the democrats actually fear. Not that this is a good way to choose a candidate, but Daniels is superb in those ways too.
What our nation needs most, at every level, is someone who is frank about the real financial problem of huge government.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/22/2010 @ 10:05 amReally? What solutions are the Tea Party proposing?
Well, the fact that they aren’t running around mindlessly chanting “hope” and “change” and assuming that this substitutes as a policy platform is a welcome development. The Tea Partiers have also been blessedly short on iconic imagery and cult of personality worship.
JVW (eccfd6) — 9/22/2010 @ 10:25 amKman : The problem with increasing taxes, as any serious student of the public fisc knows, is that increasing taxes results in decreasing revenues. We can’t tax ourselves out of trouble -don’t believe me? Take some time and check out the history of tax increases worldwide. The best source would be “The Statistical Abstract of the United States.” If you can read the sports pages, you can master the charts and figures in the “Abstract.” To increase tax revenues, you must decrease the tax rates – the Philips Curve is real. What we have to do in reduce taxes of all kinds to stimulate real growth and to really work on all levels of government to eliminate waste and duplication.
Longwalker (996c34) — 9/22/2010 @ 10:28 amI’ve answered this question repeatedly, but it always gets ignored. Seems this is just a talking point.
Even Christine O’donnell has multiple detailed solutions. Yet every time I post them… some basher says the Tea Party is silent on solutions anyway.
Do your own research. You’re dead wrong that the Tea Party just whines about a problem with no solution.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/22/2010 @ 10:34 am“Kman : The problem with increasing taxes, as any serious student of the public fisc knows, is that increasing taxes results in decreasing revenues. ”
Indeed look at the 90’s!
“To increase tax revenues, you must decrease the tax rates – the Philips Curve is real.”
So if we want to have universal health care, we can raise the revenues to fund that with tax decreases? Fantastic!
imdw (017d51) — 9/22/2010 @ 10:37 am“…inflation has robbed more people of more money (value) than all the Willie Sutton’s in history.”
Where does the money go?
Comment by imdw
I did not think when I got up this morning that I would see a perfect example of the left’s economic ignorance. You see evidence of it in the policies they espouse but to see the actual cluelessness in full view without even a fig leaf intervening is something.
imdw, let’s say your house cost $500,000 in 2005 (I doubt you own a house but we are talking theory here) and now it is worth (can be sold for) $250,000. Where did the money go ?
You don’t have it; the bank doesn’t have it. Does the great evil corporation in the sky have it ?
Simply amazing.
Mike K (568408) — 9/22/2010 @ 10:38 amBUNNIES!!!!
Kman is weary. Que lastima. When was the last time Dems cut spending, Kman? Or anyone, for that matter. There is not general agreement on that, or it would happen. Even decreases in rates of growth brings out the inner demagogue in the leftists.
Longwalker – they only consider static scoring of taxes. It fits The Narrative.
JD (d9926c) — 9/22/2010 @ 10:45 amRE: Mike K’s #29, great example. Also a perfect counterargument to the ‘evil rich steal money from everyone else’….when in the reverse, the houses are all appreciating, EVERYONE benefits, not just the banks scraping money off the transactions.
Net wealth of the country grows and shrinks based on production, trade, consumption, and valuation. It’s not a zero-sum game with only so many ‘slices of the pie’ to go around.
rtrski (192cf0) — 9/22/2010 @ 10:46 amThey should put that question on the SAT. First day of a contracts course I took was devoted to explaining the concept of creating and losing wealth via a the deal. The entire point of two sides agreeing on something because they both get richer was both obvious and … somehow shocking to *most* of the room. Value comes and goes based on ideas.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/22/2010 @ 10:50 amSo if we want to have universal health care, we can raise the revenues to fund that with tax decreases? Fantastic!
If we want “universal” health care then we ought to be empowering (that’s a favorite lefty word, right?) the citizens to negotiate with health care providers and health insurers and purchase their own damn policies. What we shouldn’t do is arrogantly insist that a collection of Ivy League academics and lifetime bureaucrats have the ability to create public policy that will magically cover 330 million people.
JVW (eccfd6) — 9/22/2010 @ 11:02 am“imdw, let’s say your house cost $500,000 in 2005 (I doubt you own a house but we are talking theory here) and now it is worth (can be sold for) $250,000. Where did the money go ?”
Is this meant to be an example of deflation? Because a given house can go up and down due to market fluctuations.
But if you mean that all prices are now 50% of what they used to be, then there’s been a transfer of wealth between people who’s assets are denominated nominally versus others. So that if a mortgage of 500,000 now buys two houses rather than one, there’s been a transfer from the debtor to the creditor — assuming that the morgage is denominated nominally.
imdw (53b665) — 9/22/2010 @ 11:06 amDaniels is impressive. Better, he has a track record of success.
either orr (ee5c8d) — 9/22/2010 @ 11:08 amY’know, if Kman wants to claim that the Tea Party overall — as opposed to particular members thereof — hasn’t offered a solution, and is just screaming about the problem, fine. It’s not entirely accurate, but fine. It quite frankly echoes one of Pres. Obama’s talking points from his CNBC town hall, but fine.
It still puts the Tea Party ahead of either major party and the establishment media, which was one of the points of the post. If Kman didn’t get that, this should make it crystal clear: The first step is to admit you have a problem. Is it too much for the people to demand leadership on the issue? Is it too much for the establishment media to ask our supposed political leaders what they’re doing about it, and not give up until they get an answer? At his town hall, Obama put the burden on the Tea party to come up with solutions, when he’s the President of the United States. It ought to be a national embarrassment. Instead, it’s a national embarrassment that the establishment media didn’t even notice his abdication of leadership.
Karl (f07e38) — 9/22/2010 @ 11:12 am“But how to get rid of the deficit?”
That’s easy enough to do. Pass a law that says Congress can’t borrow money.
Dave Surls (da5924) — 9/22/2010 @ 11:17 amInflation losses are gathered in the late evenings by witches and used to purchase newt parts for casting spells on Democrats.
If the Republicans take even one House, they need to go to the matt. When the media calls for compromise, stand your ground. Repeat 1995 (from memory) and shut down the government until the President caves, which shouldn’t be long given his lack of political power (yeah, he can muster Pelosi and Reid but nobody is listening to those folks anymore).
East Bay Jay (2fd7f7) — 9/22/2010 @ 11:20 amIt’s true, Karl, that simply identifying that a $1.5 trillion deficit is abhorrent, beats supporting such a deficit.
And it’s also true that for Obama and democrats to ‘challenge’ their opponents to solve the problems they made is lame grandstanding about a huge problem.
It is a national disgrace, but I’m still pretty dang annoyed at the idea that Tea Partiers don’t offer realistic solutions to these problems.
Of course, at the end of the day, the ultimate solution to our deficit will be to create a tremendous amount of wealth. The government isn’t going to do that… it’s going to have to get out of the way of that. So, it’s a bit of a trick for lefties to constantly demand a government solution to every problem as the mark of seriousness.
That said, there are so many great ideas for budget cuts and solutions from the Tea Party that it’s just getting tiresome to hear the same talking point again. In fact, it mirrors the problem you’re bringing up: many (GOP and Democrat) have solved the political problem of deficits by ignoring the problem. And now the left solves the political problem of beating the Tea Party’s ideas by ignoring the ideas.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/22/2010 @ 11:23 amThey don’t enforce laws like that anymore, anyway. And they would just rely on things like inflation, the true Obama tax increase on the poor (it may not be here yet, but it is inevitable).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/22/2010 @ 11:25 amOur leaders, in government and media, got their training at schools with god-like endowments. They view the treasury as an endless source of goodies.
Their attitude is like these guys:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jukQX2pl2Q
“Who got more money den dey know what to do wit?”
“Da Gub. Mint!”
Another Chris (2d8013) — 9/22/2010 @ 11:31 amimdw is making the argument that tax decreases won’t work to generate more revenue because we have no choice but to spend more.
Icy Texan (3c7e3d) — 9/22/2010 @ 11:38 am“imdw is making the argument that tax decreases won’t work to generate more revenue because we have no choice but to spend more.”
No i’m making the argument that if tax decreases work to generate more revenue then we should use them to generate more revenue!
imdw (5a9778) — 9/22/2010 @ 11:48 amimdw, it’s a curve. Go too high, or too low, and you are screwing it up. So it’s not an objection to this curve to insist people go lower and lower… it’s just obnoxious.
There is only one way to pay for over a hundred trillion in government debt and obligations, and it sure as hell isn’t solved by the government. It’s solved through some combination of denying some of those obligations and getting out of the way of massive wealth generation (that you do tax, of course).
The guy pulling the udder didn’t actually make that milk.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/22/2010 @ 11:52 amFederal and state governments must seriously cut spending. In large amounts and quickly.
That’s the bottom line. All the nonsense Democrats push out about tax increases are just not solutions.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/22/2010 @ 11:58 amBut how to get rid of the deficit? If you’re not going to increase taxes, then what, specifically, should be cut? On this, the Tea Party (as a whole) is remarkably silent.
Do you think it really matters? Pull up the chart on Wikipedia of the 2010 federal budget.
There were five things taking up 66% of the budget last year. Throw in interest on the national debt, and it hits 70%. Six things taking up 7/10s of federal spending–not revenue, spending. Do you really think a tax increase, in the teeth of a depression where the U3 has been stuck above 9.5% for well over a year and the U3/U6 ratio is the worst it has been in decades, is going to solve the problem.
A tax increase won’t do jack squat if people aren’t working. That’s not conjecture, that’s a mathematical fact. Raising the tax rate on >$250K earners back to pre-Dubya levels is pouring a milk pail in the Grand Canyon.
Government spending simply has to be cut, and it means that some sacred cows need to be slaughtered. Look at defense–even if you cut EVERY SINGLE PENNY of defense spending, plus defense-related spending that is allocated to other departments, you’ve only reduced the deficit to roughly $500 billion.
Yeah, it would be nice to hamstring the EPA and Department of Education (and I’d even look into cutting down on the DHS as well), but again, look at the chart–percentage-wise, it wouldn’t come close to closing that gap. You’d have to take down another sacred cow–which is going to be? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment? Sorry, but those are the only programs in which cutting would have any real discernable impact.
And keep in mind that in the hypothetical where all defense spending is cut, that leaves thousands, maybe even millions, of people out of work–which simply shifts a large percentage of money formerly spent on defense over to the unemployment category on the chart, with NO economic engine to absorb them. So that $1 trillion cut isn’t $1 trillion after all, it’s probably only $500-$750 billion.
It’s not about “fairness,” or “mean people,” it’s about simple math. One or more of the progressive left’s great golden calves are going to have to get melted down to get this country back to solvency.
Another Chris (2d8013) — 9/22/2010 @ 11:59 am“So it’s not an objection to this curve to insist people go lower and lower… it’s just obnoxious.”
Yes. It is:
“Kman : The problem with increasing taxes, as any serious student of the public fisc knows, is that increasing taxes results in decreasing revenues. We can’t tax ourselves out of trouble -don’t believe me? Take some time and check out the history of tax increases worldwide. The best source would be “The Statistical Abstract of the United States.” If you can read the sports pages, you can master the charts and figures in the “Abstract.” To increase tax revenues, you must decrease the tax rates – the Philips Curve is real”
imdw (14df54) — 9/22/2010 @ 12:01 pmThere’s an underlying assumption in that quote, imdw.
Sure, decrease tax to a low enough point, and we lose revenue, increase it to a high enough point, and we lose revenue. He’s talking about one part of that curve because the entire aspect of the curve is a little basic and shouldn’t have to explained, but for your ‘rebuttal’. Which is nonsense.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/22/2010 @ 12:04 pmIts hilarious that Democrats claim that lowering taxes is not a solution, when that’s exactly what they are proposing today. Extending the previous tax rates for all but those “evil rich” … except that that would mean forgoing 3/4trs of the revenue that is supposed to arrive with the increase in tax rates in 2011.
And Democrats act like the increase in revenue is what is going to solve the problem, but the CBO’s huge deficits as far as the eye can see assume that the tax rates are not extended.
So the Democrats are whining about a proposal that they are 3/4trs accepting themselves but pretend that they are not.
Typical of the Democrats misrepresentations and hypocrisy.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/22/2010 @ 12:13 pmNo i’m making the argument that if tax decreases work to generate more revenue then we should use them to generate more revenue!
Comment by imdw — 9/22/2010 @ 11:48 am
— Agreed! Now, in order for that increased revenue to actually show up on the guvmint’s books you will have to convince your drunken sailor friends in Congress to stop spending. Are you up for that challenge?
Icy Texan (3c7e3d) — 9/22/2010 @ 12:20 pm“He’s talking about one part of that curve”
No he’s pretty explicitly universal: “Take some time and check out the history of tax increases worldwide.”
I agree, dude is all about nonsense.
“Now, in order for that increased revenue to actually show up on the guvmint’s books you will have to convince your drunken sailor friends in Congress to stop spending”
Uh no increased revenue will show up whether it is spent or not.
imdw (017d51) — 9/22/2010 @ 12:30 pmLast time I looked, this thread was about “the national debt and the annual government deficit”. If we increase both revenue AND spending, then the debt and deficits remain.
Icy Texan (3c7e3d) — 9/22/2010 @ 12:40 pmi think what kinsley is sticking his finger right on is the very source of the tea party explosion. i mean i am frankly surprised myself to see this get so huge so fast, and my only explanation is that this long grumbling concern just go sparked. i think it really was that guy on cnbc. it was a weirdly rousing moment where the sheer irresponsibility of first Bush and then Obama just led to this backlash. i mean i think it is hard not to call the tea party a backlash movement. Years of knowing that this had to be solved and no one doing a damn thing and yes, making it worse, it finally crystalized into anger.
And the tin eared response didn’t help. Calling us racists for expressing serious concerns did not help one bit.
I want to believe that we are really, really, finally going to change it so we actually face these kinds of problems and solve them. but some of these problems have been creeping in my whole life and i guess i am not sure we will ever really get serious until things are so f—ed that we won’t be able to do anything.
As it is, is there the political will to end our crushing entitlements?
i guess maybe that is why i eventually turned against castle. the time for half measures is passing quickly. we can’t just kick the can further down the road, not again. We have to solve it this time. We have to tighten our government’s belt, radically. We have to not only live within our nation’s means, but even start cutting down on the debt. And Obama is actively making everything worse, whether he understands that or not.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/22/2010 @ 12:51 pmIf there was any doubt remaining, about the choice:
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/77705/mike-castle-versus-the-tea-party
ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/22/2010 @ 1:08 pmOutside of pointing and laughing, you are not really trying to have an honest discussion with iamadimwit, are you? There is not one iota of evidence that it will engage in good faith fro even a moment.
JD (5b3b30) — 9/22/2010 @ 1:24 pmAaron, it was not merely that no one has done anything. The Democrats spent years attacking George W. Bush for the deficit spending, and then – when they control all three houses – they raise the projected debt by nearly an order of magnitude more.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/22/2010 @ 1:27 pmSPQR, it’s like bashing Bush for not sending all the resources into Afghanistan that we need to win the ‘just’ war. And then refusing to do that.
Or really, any number of backtracks in the past couple of years, from transparency to bipartisanship.
The deficit is by far the best example.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/22/2010 @ 1:29 pmI think a sure sign that the country has entered the Twilight Zone was the group of state and local government employees demonstrating in Springfield earlier this year with the chant of “raise our taxes” so that they could get their wage increases and maintain their generous benefits programs.
Private sector employees not receiving such largess or with much less generous benefits packages love seeing OUR employees expressing their naked greed so openly.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/22/2010 @ 1:39 pmThank you Patricia that is a very interesting article about Governor Daniels. I’d like to know more about him, but from what I read it looks like he has the experience and many of the right qualities to be the sort of president who could effectively address the challenges facing our little country.
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 9/22/2010 @ 1:41 pmLarryD wrote:
That’s the logical answer, but it is not the liberal one. The liberal answer is: if you’re winning, you are being horribly mean to the other guy, so you should call a truce.
The realistic Dana (3e4784) — 9/22/2010 @ 1:47 pmKman wrote:
It’s simple: there should not be one government check written to any individual or any company which is not for wages earned, retirement earned and paid for, or goods or services delivered.
The realistic Dana (3e4784) — 9/22/2010 @ 1:51 pm“But how to get rid of the deficit? If you’re not going to increase taxes, then what, specifically, should be cut? On this, the Tea Party (as a whole) is remarkably silent.”
They’re not that silent. You can find plenty of indications that they want to destroy medicare and social security. You may be confused by the occasional ‘don’t steal from medicare for socialism’ type sign, but hey it’s GRASSROOTS!
imdw (c982ed) — 9/22/2010 @ 1:57 pmFirst off topic, but Woodward gets a quote from Obambi that shows that the guy literally has no idea how dangerous the world actually is. it is actually frightening if he is sincere.
http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/09/obamas-september-10th-mentality-on.html
SPQR
extremely good point.
Dustin
> The deficit is by far the best example.
And most horrifying. yep.
God i hope for once we are going to do something about it.
And even that term “deficit” is used in alot of dodges. Politicians brag about reducing the deficit, when they do. But that is just a reduction in the rate of increase of our debt. Color me unimpressed.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/22/2010 @ 1:59 pmTypical gasbag who can’t respect the wishes of the voters. His concession speech was good, where he basically said he accepted the voter’s power. It’s no surprise that he’s just another classes character in this election mess who can’t accept reality. The voters are rejecting O’Donnell, too. Let’s hope both factions recognize why both candidates could be much better.
imdw’s point that the Tea Party has grassroots is a good one. He is aware of why his own point is absurd, then.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/22/2010 @ 2:02 pmimdw, given your incoherent response to my #29 post, I think you should retire from economic arguments for a while. There was a transfer of wealth to thin air is the short answer. It certainly explains your enthusiasm for stimulus borrowing, though.
Mike K (d6b02c) — 9/22/2010 @ 2:02 pmimdw
medicare and social security will end. the only question is how. it is right now like a train headed off a cliff. Now we can stop it by applying the brakes. or we can go off the cliff and it will stop that way.
unlike a real train, there is no way to go in the opposite direction. it is either stop or wreck.
And pretending these unsustainable programs are sacrosanct is exactly why we are in this mess. you are literally part of the problem.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/22/2010 @ 2:03 pmAnd here’s yet another example of not getting the point;
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/22/murkowski-not-stripped-of-committee-leadership-position/
ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/22/2010 @ 2:10 pmWell, of course they did, because the TEA Partiers are proposing solutions to the problem that not only are…
If you’re not aware of the comprehensive spending and reform entitlement plans that Paul Ryan has put forward (which the Tea Party has accepted), then I can’t help you. None are so blind than those who refuse to see. Even your hero knows about the plan, he gave Ryan the death stare when he dismantled his inane arguments (to his face) regarding reducing the deficit via the Healthcare bill.
Dmac (d61c0d) — 9/22/2010 @ 2:16 pm“You can find plenty of indications that they want to destroy medicare and social security.”
imdw – That is the current Democrat fearmongering meme. Could you please link to some of the actual indications themselves please?
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/22/2010 @ 2:21 pmIts the Democrats that want to destroy Medicare, they’ve already put themselves on record as pulling money out of it for their faux “savings”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/22/2010 @ 2:23 pmian, what the leadership doesn’t understand is that a lot of people are simply looking for a sign that they understand the outrage.
They don’t realize this is an opportunity for them. Letting Lisa stay on appropriations, or keep seniority didn’t make a lick of sense. The excuse that they are trying to keep her from voting with dems in lame duck doesn’t make any sense. She’s going to do that anyway. If she wins (lol) she’s caucusing with the democrats, too.
The entire concept of seniority is annoying, anyway. The GOP is much better about rotating leadership than democrats are, but it’s time to rethink lengthy concentrations of legislative power.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/22/2010 @ 2:25 pm“There was a transfer of wealth to thin air is the short answer.”
Not at all! If my house is cheaper now, someone can buy it for less than they would have to spend before. You said that I probably don’t own a house. That’s right! When the price of a house I want to buy falls, I gain because I can have that house for less! But that’s just for a change in the price of one item, for general price level changes, there are going to be different transfers. Have you thought through how inflation and deflation affect the creditor/debtor relationship? Imagine you borrow 10K to buy a car. And then the next day, inflation happens and the car now costs 20K. What do you end up with? You now have 10K in debt, but a 20K car. Or really, a debt for half a car, instead of for a whole one. There’s been a transfer from the bank to you.
imdw (c982ed) — 9/22/2010 @ 2:27 pmIs there a list of who has signed on to the Paul Ryan proposal? I know that Ron Paul hasn’t and a quick google search didn’t show me where Christine O’Donnell had endorsed it. I can’t find anything specific on her website about this. Or anything really.
The roadmap only has 13 cosponsors. And while Palin loves it I haven’t seen much effort from her to sell the specific cuts to the American people. Republicans and the TEA party don’t seem to be running on these cuts as a campaign issue. Just general ‘spend less’.
I think they’ll get elected, make a few small cuts, cut taxes more than they cut spending and that’s about it. The only ones I think are serious about cuts are the ones that tell you *what* they want to cut.
time (bec298) — 9/22/2010 @ 2:33 pmTime, no doubt there are competing versions of this roadmap, and disputes over how much and how fast.
Every Tea Partier I’ve talked to about the Roadmap prefers it to the status quo, but there can be no universal Tea Party approved plan because of the movement’s nature.
O’donnell has made a lot of specific austerity ideas, actually. But I don’t see any of these quotes on her actual website. You can get the jist of it via google, largely a ‘get out of the private sector’s way’. I listed a few of these ideas in a different thread.
I can’t find any indication that she has signed onto the Roadmap for America’s Future. Those words never occur on her website, according to Google.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/22/2010 @ 2:43 pm“There’s been a transfer from the bank to you.”
imdw – The bank lent you an amount of money and expects to get paid back an amount of money. They now have a more secure loan to the extent the value of their collateral went up over time. That is not a transfer of wealth.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/22/2010 @ 2:48 pmI think it’s pathetic that the President of the United States feels compelled to ask, what is essentially a leaderless movement, what their ideas are–didn’t we elect him to do this job? If he can’t figure out why we’re in debt and how to trim the budget, then we need to take his job away and give it to someone who will do something other than whine about how mean people are to him.
Rochf (ae9c58) — 9/22/2010 @ 2:51 pm“imdw – The bank lent you an amount of money and expects to get paid back an amount of money.”
But that amount of money only buys half a car. That amount of money is not worth as much because of inflation. The bank lent out a car’s worth, but the bank is getting back only half a car’s worth. Which side of this deal would you prefer to be on?
imdw (043f60) — 9/22/2010 @ 2:51 pmExactly, daleyrocks.
In fact, imdw doesn’t get that he’s refuting himself. He didn’t the house was worth the high price. He won’t pay that much for it. He is waiting for it to get to a price that lines up with the value he places in the home. When he gets it for that price, he didn’t win any free wealth transfer at all.
Since he wouldn’t have bought the house if it wasn’t worth more to him than the price, wealth is created, normally. but with a tremendously screwed with market, even this isn’t clear.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/22/2010 @ 2:52 pmimdw – And actually, the bank still owns the car until you pay off the loan, so they have given up nothing. The title is in their name unril the loan is paid off. Try again.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/22/2010 @ 2:52 pmI meant: He didn’t believe the house was worth the high price. The high value that represents this wealth transfer was already a value he rejected.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/22/2010 @ 2:54 pm“He didn’t the house was worth the high price. He won’t pay that much for it. He is waiting for it to get to a price that lines up with the value he places in the home.”
You really don’t see how people gain when something they want to buy drops in price? And that this gain is real whether they would have bought it at the high price or not?
“imdw – And actually, the bank still owns the car until you pay off the loan, so they have given up nothing. The title is in their name unril the loan is paid off. Try again.”
Boy you’re really fighting this hypo. Let’s make it a house then. You can sell a house before you pay off the mortgage, right?
imdw (3ac9fb) — 9/22/2010 @ 2:58 pmYou’re just not understanding the concept. When you decide not to buy something for $20, and then buy it for $15, you are saying it’s not worth $20. You didn’t get $5.
You did think it was worth more than $15, or you wouldn’t have traded your money for it. Wealth was created, normally, this way, through any deal. But the bank didn’t transfer wealth to you under your hypo. You refuted yourself.
——-
Drudge has the new ‘Pledge to America’ up. It’s lame in comparison to the Contract with America. Perhaps that’s smart. This election is a rejection of democrats, not an endorsement or trust in Republicans, who, after all, still have a Contract with America they need to uphold.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/22/2010 @ 3:02 pm“When you decide not to buy something for $20, and then buy it for $15, you are saying it’s not worth $20. You didn’t get $5.”
Number one, in the hypothethical I didn’t really say I hadn’t decided to buy it at the high price. I’m assuming you think this is clearly a gain — I’d be willing to buy a widget for $20, and I gain by being able to buy it for $15.
Now let’s say I can’t afford a $20 widget. You really don’t see how I’ve gained when I can buy it for $15? It’s the same widget. Something I could not afford is now affordable to me. This as if you gave me $5 to cover the difference and make the widget affordable to me.
imdw (1635c7) — 9/22/2010 @ 3:09 pmMeanwhile, the Democrats evidently think that there is no real urgency to actually addressing America’s problems since they have Stephen Colbert, a comedian, “testifying” in front of a Congressional hearing.
Yep, must be no real problems in America at all when they can waste time on a comedian doing his schtick in a hearing.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/22/2010 @ 3:10 pmIn that car hypo, you gain nothing unless you seel when the value is up. In that case, the bank doesn’t give you the money, the buyer does.
Iamadimwit is proof positive that I would not trust a leftist with even the change in my cup holder.
JD (fc59fb) — 9/22/2010 @ 3:11 pmWill you buy my house for $999999999999? No?
Oh.
What about for $200,000? You’re saving billions!
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/22/2010 @ 3:13 pm“But the bank didn’t transfer wealth to you under your hypo.”
I’m shocked. it’s as if you don’t understand where the central banker’s fear of inflation comes from. hint: its because banks lose out when unexpected inflation erodes the value of their nominally denominated loans.
imdw (522aa3) — 9/22/2010 @ 3:13 pmThis is classic vintage imdw. Chase its idiocy down a rabbit hole far far away from the actual topic, which it certainly does not want to discuss.
BUNNIES!!!!
LOOK SOMETHING SHINY !!!
JD (f89659) — 9/22/2010 @ 3:14 pm“What about for $200,000? You’re saving billions!”
Oh. I’m assuming we’re talking about actual market prices here. Not wishful thinking. That’s what’s going on with inflation. It’s not prices in your head going up. It’s actual prices. Please try to understand that there is a reality going on.
“In that car hypo, you gain nothing unless you seel when the value is up”
You gain from having a car and only having to pay for half a car.
imdw (522aa3) — 9/22/2010 @ 3:17 pmShow of hands … Who would trust iamadimwit with your child’s lunch money?
JD (a30317) — 9/22/2010 @ 3:32 pmIs there a list of who has signed on to the Paul Ryan proposal? I know that Ron Paul hasn’t and a quick google search didn’t show me where Christine O’Donnell had endorsed it. I can’t find anything specific on her website about this. Or anything really.
It isn’t just about signing a piece of paper and pledging allegiance to it, it’s about their state of mind and intent once they get into office. To that point I offer the following proof:
– Bennett gets ousted from Utah, despite many years of service and almost a 100% rating on conservative issues via his voting record. The reason? He supported TARP, period.
– Castle gets the boot because of his support for Cap ‘n Crunch. Case closed.
– Murkowski gets shoved over the side for massive pork barreling for her own state. Even though her own citizens benefit directly from her largesse, she’s gets ashcanned anyway.
Would you like more examples? Just ask, there are plenty already, and many more to come before the general election. Again, if anyone’s going to keep a straight face when they make unsubstantiated claims such as I think they’ll get elected, make a few small cuts, they’re either not looking very hard or are obvious Moby’s.
Dmac (d61c0d) — 9/22/2010 @ 3:32 pmActually, you’re MAKING billions.
Either that or that little pesky fact that no one will buy my house for the wrong price means it’s not worth that much.
Anyway, JD’s probably right. This is about how the disgrace of letting our deficit and debt get to this Obama-disaster level.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/22/2010 @ 3:33 pmWho would trust iamadimwit with your child’s lunch money?
Better question – what drunken realtor would be so desperate to actually work with that individual in order to find a home?
Dmac (d61c0d) — 9/22/2010 @ 3:34 pmOh. I’m assuming we’re talking about actual market prices here. Not wishful thinking. That’s what’s going on with inflation. It’s not prices in your head going up. It’s actual prices. Please try to understand that there is a reality going on.
Funniest line of the thread – so far. It can only top itself, given the number of howlers posted already.
Dmac (d61c0d) — 9/22/2010 @ 3:35 pmPerhaps it’s time to remind it that it’s attempting to argue finance with two people who actually have direct knowledge of working with actuarial tables and being a CFO as well.
Dmac (d61c0d) — 9/22/2010 @ 3:36 pm“Either that or that little pesky fact that no one will buy my house for the wrong price means it’s not worth that much.”
Well, we are talking about inflation and deflation. So it’s about the market price of things changing. If no one will buy your house at a given price, then it’s not really the market price, and not what we’re talking about when we talk about inflation/deflation.
imdw (522aa3) — 9/22/2010 @ 3:37 pm“its because banks lose out when unexpected inflation erodes the value of their nominally denominated loans.”
imdw – Only to the extent they misestimated the amount of inflation they built into the interest rate they charged on the loan. Ever wonder why interest rates tend to go up in periods of higher inflation? This is seriously not that hard.
Back to the bank example. Banks are not in the business of buying cars. They want to lend money and get paid back. They do care about the value of cars for collateral purposes. In your example, $10,000 of wealth existed at the beginning of the period. All of a sudden because of a change in car prices, that $10,000 was transformed into $20,000. It was created due to exogenous forces. It was not transferred from one party to the other, e.g. the bank did not lose $10,000. You as the potential owner of the car if you pay off the loan, have a more valuable asset.
This is not difficult.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/22/2010 @ 3:38 pmimdw – I also want to revisit your assertions that it is not difficult to find evidence that members of Tea Party want to destroy social security and medicare.
If that is the case, why have you not yet produced links backing up that assertion?
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/22/2010 @ 3:40 pmInflation is not rising prices. Its the devaluation of money. Money becoming less valuable, usually because of the increased supply of money or the devaluation of whatever value backs money … if any. We measure it indirectly by price rises, because we can’t measure it directly.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/22/2010 @ 3:42 pm“What about for $200,000? You’re saving billions!”
Dustin – Amazing transfer of wealth right there! Heh.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/22/2010 @ 3:44 pmBy the way, intentionally inflating currency was a Democrat party platform a century ago. See William Jennings Bryan “Cross of Gold” speech.
Obviously Democrats knowledge of economics has not improved.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/22/2010 @ 3:44 pmIt’s actual prices. Please try to understand that there is a reality going on.
Ahh, but prices are nothing more than an agreement about value. They’re no more ‘real’ than the ether; they’re entirely imaginary constructs of the parties to the contract, stating what they think the exchange is worth.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 9/22/2010 @ 3:44 pmWhat year in school are you imdw?
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/22/2010 @ 3:45 pmFolks, economic theory to imdw is truly a black hole. In the interest of not humiliating him any more, the discussion should end here.
If Ryan can really get the Republican Congress to adopt his roadmap, I think the country will go for it as they (except economic illiterates like you-know-who) are now beginning to realize that things cannot go on as before. My oldest son is an Obama supporter but does not expect to ever see a dime of Social Security. There are a lot of potential libertarians (I used to think he was one and was surprised he didn’t see through Obama) out there who are willing to be convinced if only someone will show them a serious plan. So far there have been none.
I remember when Reagan signed TEFRA, the famous tax increase that all the Democrats refer to. He was promised by the Congress, in the hands of Democrats of course, that they would do three dollars of spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase.
Never happened and nobody on the GOP side has ever trusted them again. Unfortunately, a lot of post 1994 Republicans got to like the job and the perks and sold out. The really sincere 1994 class members agreed to term limits and left, leaving behind the trimmers.
A serious plan to cut spending and regulation plus some incentives like a capital gains holiday for five or ten years on new investment might ensure a Republican Congress for 20 years.
Mike K (d6b02c) — 9/22/2010 @ 3:49 pmAhh, but prices are nothing more than an agreement about value. They’re no more ‘real’ than the ether; they’re entirely imaginary constructs of the parties to the contract, stating what they think the exchange is worth.
Comment by aphrael
aphrael, you are showing some economic intelligence here. Just don’t drift off into labor theory of value like Obama does.
Mike K (d6b02c) — 9/22/2010 @ 3:51 pmThomas Sowell’s book on Marxism does a great job of refuting the labor theory of value for those actually interested.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/22/2010 @ 3:53 pm“You can find plenty of indications that they want to destroy medicare and social security.”
imdw – Your statement about the Tea Party above from two hours ago needs support.
Drop the diversion about inflation/deflation, which you clearly don’t understand. Brush up on it in your textbook or a blog post.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/22/2010 @ 4:01 pmThanks, JD. I am a racist, though, I hope you realize.
Glad everyone is liking Mitch Daniels. There’s hope for the Republic yet
Patricia (9c62d9) — 9/22/2010 @ 5:33 pm!“imdw – Only to the extent they misestimated the amount of inflation they built into the interest rate they charged on the loan.”
Yes. Exactly to that extent. Are y’all fans of “austrian economics” ? Regardless, here’s a little piece from the Mises Institute that explains the transfer between creditors and debtors as a result of inflation:
“The first fact that needs to be noted in answering such questions is that inflation is detrimental to all creditors. The higher prices rise, the lower will fall the purchasing power of the principal and interest payments due. The dollar which was loaned out had a higher purchasing ability, could provide more goods, than the dollar which is paid back.”
Conversely, deflation will have the opposite effect.
“All of a sudden because of a change in car prices,”
Because of inflation. Get the hypothetical right.
“that $10,000 was transformed into $20,000. It was created due to exogenous forces. It was not transferred from one party to the other, e.g. the bank did not lose $10,000. You as the potential owner of the car if you pay off the loan, have a more valuable asset.”
The bank is getting back 10K, but in an economy where 10K only purchases half what it used to purchase. That’s what it has lost.
“They’re no more ‘real’ than the ether; they’re entirely imaginary constructs of the parties to the contract, stating what they think the exchange is worth.”
Right but you get that they are an agreement. If only Dustin says his house is worth $1 Billion, he doesn’t have agreement.
imdw (2020d4) — 9/22/2010 @ 5:50 pm“imdw – Your statement about the Tea Party above from two hours ago needs support.”
Joe Miller thinks Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional. Is that enough to show that the Tea Party wants to destroy those programs? I do admit, since it’s a grassroots movement you’ll find plenty of opinion. Including people who want major cuts in government, but not medicare or social security. Or want the government to keep its hands out of medicare.
imdw (9af31a) — 9/22/2010 @ 5:56 pmThe value of a car does not change because of inflation. The price of the car can be effected to a certain extent by inflation, but the price is determined by what another party in the market is willing to pay. If your 10K car can suddenly fetch 20K in the market, that ain’t inflation, no matter how many times you call it that.
The bank lost nothing, you imbecile. They entered into an agreement where they would loan out 10K, and get said 10K paid back over time, with interest. They lost nothing.
Again, by a show of hands – who would let dimwit handle paper money?
JD (8ded14) — 9/22/2010 @ 5:56 pmNo, that does not show what you claim. That shows that Joe Miller thinks it is unconstitutional.
Your response in 110 basically admits that your prior assertion was a complete falsehood and asspull.
JD (8ded14) — 9/22/2010 @ 5:58 pmNotice how much effort the trollz are going to in order to not talk about the topic. This is a recurring theme.
JD (8ded14) — 9/22/2010 @ 6:00 pmJD wrote:
Well, a couple of years ago, the voters decided to let a</i. dimwit handle paper money. 🙁
The Dana who remembers 2008 (8a8a86) — 9/22/2010 @ 6:03 pm“The value of a car does not change because of inflation”
The price does. So does the purchasing power of the nominal amount of dollars owed to the bank. That’s what the bank loses. The 10K they get back is not worth as much as what they lent out.
You’re just mad that I’m the one that said this.
“Your response in 110 basically admits that your prior assertion was a complete falsehood and asspull.”
Hey if tea party fans all want significant big entitlement programs that are major liberal victories to stay, then I’m all for being wrong about the tea parties. Next time you go to a meeting, ask them what they think about your proposal for a mandatory government program that takes money from people who work and gives it to people who don’t.
imdw (9af31a) — 9/22/2010 @ 6:03 pmCrap! Messed up an HTML tag! 🙁
The inept Dana (8a8a86) — 9/22/2010 @ 6:04 pmI am not mad, I just think you are aggressively mendoucheous. And should not handle sharp objects.
JD (8ded14) — 9/22/2010 @ 6:17 pmYou can claim that the bank “loses money” until you are blue in the face, but that will not change the fact that they got in return exactly what they agreed to when they entered into the agreement. Your world, it is weird.
JD (8ded14) — 9/22/2010 @ 6:19 pmThat’s very nice. I’m actually surprised that you’re having a hard time understanding the purchasing power of a given unit of currency and how that can change with inflation/deflation. Maybe you’ve just never thought about these things. Including now.
imdw (c982ed) — 9/22/2010 @ 6:19 pmDid quoting the Mises Institute not help?
imdw (c982ed) — 9/22/2010 @ 6:21 pmI do not have a hard time understanding anything, you little twit. It is sad that you do not understand the ideas behind agreement and consideration in a contract voluntarily agreed to by 2 parties.
JD (8ded14) — 9/22/2010 @ 6:21 pmHow many names have you posted under? Honesty is not your friend. Sophistry is your apparent trade.
JD (8ded14) — 9/22/2010 @ 6:22 pmYour economics education is sadly deficient, imdw. Typical really.
I’m thinking of getting t-shirts printed that read: Economics, its works bitches!
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/22/2010 @ 6:23 pmwhoops, here’s the right link.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/22/2010 @ 6:25 pm“It is sad that you do not understand the ideas behind agreement and consideration in a contract voluntarily agreed to by 2 parties.”
No I get that the people agreed to it. Just like if you deposit your money in the bank, you and the bank agree that you’ll get it back. That doesn’t change the fact that if there’s inflation, the bank is paying you back with dollars that have less purchasing power than what you gave them.
Is there some other economist I should find to explain this basic concept to you?
imdw (1635c7) — 9/22/2010 @ 6:26 pmI understand inflation, you lying twit. You initially claimed that a car purchased for $10,000, but increases in value to $20,000 was due to inflation, rather than an increase in its market value. Everything else since then has been vintage imdw, half truths, running around with the goal posts, LOOK BUNNIES, and studious efforts in distracting from the actual topic, which does not look good for you and yours. I, and others tried, but your mendacity wins the day. Congrats.
How many names have you posted under?
JD (8ded14) — 9/22/2010 @ 6:31 pmimdw:
I’m not convinced by your argument and your third sentence suggests you aren’t either. But if your statement is correct, then surely it could be applied to other situations. Thus, many Democratic leaders questioned the constitutionality of Bush’s wartime actions. Did that mean they wanted to destroy the military?
Similarly, shouldn’t Democratic Senator Robert Byrd’s objection to Obama’s appointment of numerous czars — Byrd indicated it was an unconstitutional executive power grab — be imputed to the Democratic Party and all its members? After all, unlike Miller, Byrd was a long-time Democratic leader and serving Senator. Following your reasoning, surely everyone in Byrd’s Party agrees with him.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 9/22/2010 @ 6:39 pmWhy are you messing with the troll, honestly, some are worse than others. Now Kinsley, has long made
ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/22/2010 @ 6:43 pmme doubt the supposed brilliance of a Harvard education, Fallows first, when he totally missed
the Japanese MITI bubble
DRJ is a kinder more gentle person than I.
JD (8ded14) — 9/22/2010 @ 6:55 pmIntelligent interest rates take into account inflation, risk of non-payment, and a profit, imdw.
nk (db4a41) — 9/22/2010 @ 6:58 pmOverhead (operating costs), too.
nk (db4a41) — 9/22/2010 @ 6:59 pmThe solution is simple: Extend and increase tax cuts for the Koch brothers’ various small businesses.
Larry Reilly (ae99e7) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:01 pmTrickle down. Trickle sideways. Trickle up.
All yachts will rise.
“You initially claimed that a car purchased for $10,000, but increases in value to $20,000 was due to inflation, rather than an increase in its market value.”
Oh so this whole problem is because you misunderstood what I said? We were talking about the effect of inflation. In my hypothetical I said that inflation occurred, in order to demonstrate what the effect of inflation would be on that creditor / debtor relationship. Now you’re saying that it wasn’t due to inflation? So you just were completely misunderstanding this from the beginning? Oh man I am sorry.
“I’m not convinced by your argument and your third sentence suggests you aren’t either”
Hey my first comment on the topic warned that you’d find lots of differing opinions within the tea party. I also said you can find plenty of indications that they want those destroyed. Joe Miller is just one. I suppose Palin is also a tea party darling, and hell she supported TARP. So I guess anything goes.
I’m more than happy to be wrong and to instead find that the reactionary fiscal and constitutional populism that is the tea party is in fact happy with the creation of large entitlement programs in the post new deal era. Wouldn’t surprise me if we found out that the tea party is more like a ‘have your cake and eat it too’ party. They want fiscal conservatism and constitutional minimalism AND they want their entitlement programs.
imdw (8bb588) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:03 pm“You initially claimed that a car purchased for $10,000, but increases in value to $20,000 was due to inflation, rather than an increase in its market value.”
Oh so this whole problem is because you misunderstood what I said? We were talking about the effect of inflation. In my hypothetical I said that inflation occurred, in order to demonstrate what the effect of inflation would be on that creditor / debtor relationship. Now you’re saying that it wasn’t due to inflation? So you just were completely misunderstanding this from the beginning? Oh man I am sorry.
“I’m not convinced by your argument and your third sentence suggests you aren’t either”
Hey my first comment on the topic warned that you’d find lots of differing opinions within the tea party. I also said you can find plenty of indications that they want those destroyed. Joe Miller is just one. How about Sharron Angle?
I suppose Palin is also a tea party darling, and hell she supported TARP. So I guess anything goes.
I’m more than happy to be wrong and to instead find that the reactionary fiscal and constitutional populism that is the tea party is in fact happy with the creation of large entitlement programs in the post new deal era. Wouldn’t surprise me if we found out that the tea party is more like a ‘have your cake and eat it too’ party. They want fiscal conservatism and constitutional minimalism AND they want their entitlement programs.
imdw (0275b8) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:05 pm“Intelligent interest rates take into account inflation, risk of non-payment, and a profit, imdw.”
True, but if the actual inflation/deflation is different than the expectation, then you’ll have a transfer in purchasing power between the creditor and debtor. This is kind of basic.
imdw (0275b8) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:07 pmimdw,
I don’t think it’s a question of being happy or unhappy with enormous entitlement programs. The programs are here and likely will be until they run out of money, at which time their constitutionality will be the least of our worries.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:14 pmI see Larry Reilly is on the Koch conspiracy nut bandwagon.
What is it with liberals who have to explain the failure of their ideology with nutty conspiracy theories?
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:17 pm“The programs are here and likely will be until they run out of money, at which time their constitutionality will be the least of our worries.”
I count people who are fine with letting them “run out of money” as part of the crew that wants them destroyed. People who want social security and medicare around, I don’t.
imdw (043f60) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:19 pmThe ones who are fine with letting them run out of money are the Democrats who have been demagoguing attempts to reform them.
But you just keep slinging the BS, imdw.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:23 pmjust two years ago if you told that preening Obama person that by 2010 he’d be reduced to peddling conspiracy theories about the “Koch brothers” I bet he wouldn’t have believed you at all
He’s really a lot historically pathetic.
happyfeet (19c1da) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:24 pmYou can count on Mawy Weilly to spit out the thinkregress talking point of the month. Every time.
Again, I misunderstood nothing. As nk and others have repeatedly pointed out to you, the risk of inflation and deflation is taken into account, along with many other factors, in determining the interest rate they are willing to agree to. Your condescending arrogant pretentious and faux-superior typical douchebag leftist attitude does not make you more correct, it just makes you a douchebag.
You originally asserted that the Tea Party wants to destroy social security and medicare. Many called you out on it, and to the extent that you responded, you were able to point to one candidate claiming they are unconstitutional, and then your typical weasel words, trying to run around with the goalposts.
DRJ was far kinder to you than you deserve.
Remind me, how many sockpuppets have you used here?
JD (8ded14) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:25 pmThat is you and yours, who demagogue every attempt to make them solvent over the long run. You and yours, by your actions today, are ensuring their destruction.
JD (8ded14) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:27 pm“Again, I misunderstood nothing.”
But you said this: “You initially claimed that a car purchased for $10,000, but increases in value to $20,000 was due to inflation, rather than an increase in its market value.”
Which means that you totally didn’t get that the hypothetical was showing how purchasing power of $10K had changed due to inflation. Not even a quote from the Mises Institute could wake you up from this.
“As nk and others have repeatedly pointed out to you, the risk of inflation and deflation is taken into account, along with many other factors, in determining the interest rate they are willing to agree to”
Indeed, there’s an expectation of inflation in any credit transaction. And the model of the car loan didn’t include that. If you wanted to more closely model reality you’d be talking about the wealth transfers effected by unexpected inflation/deflation. But for a simple display of how purchasing power changes, the model works.
imdw (2020d4) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:31 pmIt’s funny. Every time a fiscal conservative says that there are indeed programs that can be cut, the first thing out of the left mouth is: “Nu’uh.”
Then, when they say, sure, look at this or this or this, the first thing they say is: “The Rethuglicans want to kill old people.”
Every single federal government department, office and program — including the military — are bloated, inefficient and corrupt.
Yet, the only solution is to keep shoveling money into the gaping maw.
Except, of course, there’s no more freaking money, imdb. It’s gone. I suppose, we can say we don’t like it, but there it is. The piggy bank is empty, broken and in the trash.
China is about to enjoy it’s own world of hurt, the Saudis and their oil-rich brethren are looking for hidey-holes for when Iran gets a nuke and all we do is sit around and pass a multi-billion dollar, ill-conceived health-care bill because England has one.
I hate to say it, but Ahmadinejad is right. Capitalism in America is failing, but it isn’t because it doesn’t work. It is being destroyed one little bit at a time, willfully, by people too foolish to understand how it works.
Ag80 (5c7ef4) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:31 pmthat was nicely said Mr. 80
happyfeet (19c1da) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:35 pm“That is you and yours, who demagogue every attempt to make them solvent over the long run. You and yours, by your actions today, are ensuring their destruction.”
What do you think is the effect of the health reform bill on the solvency of medicare in the long run? And who demagogued that?
imdw (2020d4) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:35 pmLOOK BUNNIES !!!!!! SOMETHING SHINY !!!!!!!!!!!!
JD (8ded14) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:40 pmthe effect of the health reform bill on the solvency of medicare in the long run is that dead people become very cost effective
happyfeet (19c1da) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:40 pmYou mean if they cut Medicare and Advantage the way they claim to in the legislation for scoring purposes, or after they go back on those cuts?
JD (8ded14) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:41 pmAny honest discussion of social security really should include the mission creep factor which has considerably changed the size, scope and cost of SS outgoes since FDR’s day. As progressive as he was I’m not sure he’d even recognize his signature entitlement today. Would returning it to its origins and initial purpose be “destroying” SS or saving it?
elissa (fd598e) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:42 pmAG80 for President.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:43 pmimdw, the CBO report on the healthcare bill showed that it was the Democrats demagoguing the healthcare bill’s effects on Medicare quite explicitly.
But you pretend that the opposite occurred. Its one of the many reasons that you have no credibility.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:44 pm“LOOK BUNNIES !!!!!! SOMETHING SHINY !!!!!!!!!!!!”
That’s what I thought. We’re back to the profundity which is repetitiveness.
“You mean if they cut Medicare and Advantage the way they claim to in the legislation for scoring purposes, or after they go back on those cuts?”
It’s a simple question. What does the bill do? You think it has cuts? Does this go a little against your claim that “you and yours, who demagogue every attempt to make them solvent” ?
Time for bunnies indeed.
imdw (603c39) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:44 pmimdw, again, pretend that the CBO never pointed out that the claimed costs savings were illusory and that the cuts in reimbursement rates were frauds.
It only confirms my opinion of you.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:46 pm“So does the purchasing power of the nominal amount of dollars owed to the bank.”
imdw – Congratulations on going back to your Economics textbooks to try to get something right.
In the interim, the bank will have been collecting interest payments which it can lend out at higher rates to offset the higher than anticipated inflation you have assumed.
With higher inflation, your car will also cost you more to maintain and operate, diminishing your overall purchasing power and your ability to make the loan payments.
You have much to learn, grasshopper and Austrian economics sucks the big one.
Also BIG TIME FAIL one the Tea Party point on social security and medicare.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:46 pmSo our host does something remarkably gracious, allowing formerly banned Trolls back into the fold. Predictably, we’ve had just more of the usual nonsense and obfuscation, leading to more threadjacking du jour. Have we learned anything yet?
Dmac (d61c0d) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:48 pm“If you wanted to more closely model reality you’d be talking about the wealth transfers effected by unexpected inflation/deflation.”
imdw – You tried that earlier and blew it. Let sleeping dogs lie.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:50 pm“imdw, again, pretend that the CBO never pointed out that the claimed costs savings were illusory and that the cuts in reimbursement rates were frauds.”
I asked JD what the effect was. JD said there were cuts. You think he’s wrong about that?
imdw (c982ed) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:50 pmOnce a troll, always a troll.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:51 pmI think I found imdw’s rabbits.
Patricia (9c62d9) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:52 pm“imdw – You tried that earlier and blew it. Let sleeping dogs lie.”
Even the Mises Institute didn’t include it in their analysis. You see how the basic fact doesn’t change.
“With higher inflation, your car will also cost you more to maintain and operate, diminishing your overall purchasing power and your ability to make the loan payments.”
Indeed the purchasing powers of anything denominated nominally will go down. Still doesn’t change the fact that what I’m giving the bank is worth less than they expected to be getting.
imdw (c982ed) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:53 pmThis is HILARIOUS. You’re backtracking so fast that Lex Luthor’s plot has been undone!
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:53 pm#142 Ag80:
Oh, it’s much more fun to believe you can grab hold of your belt and lift yourself six feet into the air!
The Soviets won through with their decades of propaganda, pedagogy and demagoguery. Hilarious that they aren’t around to celebrate.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:54 pmSo how many sockpuppets have you used?
Seth on Top Chef desserts is a train wreck.
JD (8ded14) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:56 pmDmac – Shocking, isn’t it?
JD (8ded14) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:58 pmAg80 @ #142,
So very well said. And although there is no more money, nada, zero, as long as Team D repeats it’s foundational mantra of, There’s always more, there’s always more, we will continue to spiral downward.
To wit, Hillary Clinton pledged 50 million American dollars that does not exist toward providing clean cooking stoves in developing countries to reduce deaths from smoke inhalation and fight climate change as a part of Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves.
If there were 50 million available, how many Americans who are unemployed (not funemployed) and seriously need help, could have been helped?
It’s all make-believe anymore.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:58 pm==Have we learned anything yet?==
Why yes, Dmac, I believe we have. But, actually wasn’t this “second – chance fail” predicted with utter certainty by many of us even without benefit of crystal ball?
elissa (fd598e) — 9/22/2010 @ 7:59 pm“This is HILARIOUS. You’re backtracking so fast that Lex Luthor’s plot has been undone!”
Backtrack on what?
imdw (4829b2) — 9/22/2010 @ 8:01 pmDaley, haven’t you heard? The Dem’s new plan to prevent their upcoming annihilation is to…wait for it..demonize and discredit the Tea Party. Genius, I know – but here we have their loyal and useful idiots parroting their memorized lines.
Dmac (d61c0d) — 9/22/2010 @ 8:02 pmWhy, yes it was, Elissa. Yes indeed. I’m done here for tonight, because I’ve already seen this movie dozens of times, and the ending is always the same.
And in spite of our host’s admonishments not to call others names, in light of today’s festivities allow me to call imdw a complete and utter buttpipe.
Dmac (d61c0d) — 9/22/2010 @ 8:06 pmDmac – It is amazing that they think that calling people racists, and teabaggers, and all of the things that they have called their opponents, that they are surprised that people are turned off by their conduct. Also, it is remarkable that they appear to want to take a position, for example, that Social Security is alright and solvent, and any attempts to fix it to ensure its long term viability are just going to destroy it.
JD (8ded14) — 9/22/2010 @ 8:09 pm_________________________________________
Thus, the establishment media reveals itself, not as the people’s watchdog against irresponsible government, but as the irresponsible government’s guard dog against the people.
But when you’re liberal — as much of the media and academia are — and supposedly so kind, loving, generous and sophisticated, you’re absolved of all your sins. And nothing else really matters, nothing else is all that important.
The following community, with its sleazy politicians and corner-cutting urban residents — who undoubtedly mostly embrace the idea that Republicans/conservatives need not apply — is kind of a paradigm of this nation in the current age of “Goddamn America” leftism.
Mark (3e3a7c) — 9/22/2010 @ 8:11 pm“Still doesn’t change the fact that what I’m giving the bank is worth less than they expected to be getting.”
imdw – Plus you have a depreciating asset and the bank will have your interest and principal payments.
Keep those talking points coming grasshopper.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/22/2010 @ 8:28 pmGloria Steinem is all on board with the Dem’s new plan. She was interviewed tonight by Carol Marin for being founder of the– don’t laugh now– non-profit “Women’s Media Center” whose purpose is to assure that professional women are treated fairly by the media. (Of course Glors is really in town to lend support to the political campaigns of Pat Quinn and Alexi Giannoulias, even tho technically they are not woman candidates.)
Nevertheless, Gloria did have some thoughts and keen insight on women in politics, which she was happy to share. Palin and O’Donnell? Dangerous radical far right Tea Partiers giving all women a bad name. Meechelle O and Nancy Pelosi? Why, they’re the emblem of strong, smart women who know how to play the game and get things done. Wonderful role models.
Thought you’d want to know.
elissa (fd598e) — 9/22/2010 @ 8:31 pm“imdw – Plus you have a depreciating asset and the bank will have your interest and principal payments.”
Sure but that’s the case with inflation or without!
“Keep those talking points coming grasshopper.”
The thing is, inflation’s effect on the purchasing power of a dollar isn’t really a “talking point.” Like JD, you’re just upset that I said it.
imdw (c982ed) — 9/22/2010 @ 8:39 pmMoney is a claim on future productivity.
Productivity is about making the same amount of stuff with less inputs (efficiency) + making new / more stuff (effectiveness).
The rest of monetary economics stuff is guess work.
** One of the funniest argument I ever heard was two economist trying to figure price inflation of TV Sets while adjusting for all the new features added in the last 50 years. Priceless.
Heavensent (e230a5) — 9/22/2010 @ 8:49 pm“Backtrack on what?
Comment by imdw —”
You cited the efforts to avoid Social Security’s destruction, when you’re supposed to be proving your claims that people want to “destroy” it.
It’s a massive backtrack. Reducing an entitlement when the current cost is more than we can afford can hardly be evidence of intent to destroy.
It’s a backtrack, but you never really attempted to make a case. The thread is about how the media ignored the deficit. You’re a great example of how they do it.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/22/2010 @ 8:55 pm“Like JD, you’re just upset that I said it.”
imdw – I’m not upset you said it. I think you act with typical undergrad arrogance that it’s the greatest discovery in the universe when you don’t actually understand how the pieces come together as you so ably demonstrated earlier.
I am way more than happy to let you display your ignorance and allow you to beclown yourself.
Next I think you should apply yourself to figuring out why government intervention in the housing market to force lenders to lower down payment requirements and credit standards was a bad idea. It is closely related to the threadjacking you performed today.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/22/2010 @ 8:56 pm#178 daleyrocks:
Such absolute stupid has to be trained, because it sure can’t exist in nature.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 9/22/2010 @ 9:44 pmIt’s kind of exposing one’s self, to a computer virus, no good can come of it. It’s like Woodward
ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/22/2010 @ 10:05 pmcoming to the realization that Obama was clueless, we knew that long ago
Nope. You’re still arguing with him. Is he lying about you? If not, don’t let him upset you.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/22/2010 @ 11:16 pm“You cited the efforts to avoid Social Security’s destruction, when you’re supposed to be proving your claims that people want to “destroy” it.”
I said that Joe Miller said it is unconstitutional.
But maybe you see efforts at turning social security into something that is not social and not secure as not destroying it.
“Next I think you should apply yourself to figuring out why government intervention in the housing market to force lenders to lower down payment requirements and credit standards was a bad idea.”
Oh we spent a long time in a credit boom that was a bad idea overall. It didn’t just hit housing.
“I think you act with typical undergrad arrogance that it’s the greatest discovery in the universe when you don’t actually understand how the pieces come together as you so ably demonstrated earlier. ”
Hey take on JD saying the bank should be happy its getting the 10K it thought it was getting. You can take something apart — like a loan — to see how some external force affects it — like inflation. Yes interest rates include several factors, such as risk, overhead, profit, expected inflation. But you can still create a model that extracts one of these to show the effect of an exogenous change in one of these on the transaction. Take risk — if the risk changes unexpectedly, then there’s been a transfer as well. We can model that in a model that doesn’t include inflation in order to make the effect clear.
imdw (c982ed) — 9/23/2010 @ 5:19 amIs he lying about you?
No, but he’s lying about everything else.
Gloria Steinem is all on board with the Dem’s new plan. She was interviewed tonight by Carol Marin for being
I tried watching that interview, and as soon as Steinem made her first comment about how “the GOP attack machine that’s been hijacked by far – right extremists and funded by massive far – right corporate interests,” I turned it off. Very disappointed with Marin, who I think is one of the best interviewers around – but she completely allowed her to continue with howler after howler, with no questions of any proof for her nutbagginess.
Dmac (d61c0d) — 9/23/2010 @ 5:39 amThe stupid has taken over the asylum.
See you later. Much later.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 9/23/2010 @ 6:15 amI’ll be returning to it again and again.
Yes. More please, in every media format imaginable.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 9/23/2010 @ 6:17 amCan I take a turn at “whack-a-troll”?
Here’s imadimwit’s original post:
“…inflation has robbed more people of more money (value) than all the Willie Sutton’s in history.”
Where does the money go?
Comment by imdw — 9/22/2010 @ 9:31 am
I know, imadimwit! The inflation fairy steals it at night and hides it in your mother’s basement!
If you hurry home from the library (where ur forced to go for Internet access since mommy got tired of you playing
WOW 20 hrs/day) and start searching, you might find it in 3 or 4 days.
There’s billions! You can buy your own house!
Besides, you need a break. This has been a long, tiring thread for you.
Besides, I know for sure we can all use a break, too.
BTW, we certainly must all admire imadimwit’s rabbit hole. It has more twists and turns than an Ozark highway.
KobeClan (39eaf5) — 9/23/2010 @ 7:39 amThat was your proffered defense after claiming TeaPartiers want to destroy SS and Medicare. All you succeeded in doing was showing a candidate didn’t think it was Constitutional, a far cry from your original claim.
The rest was vintage dimwit, and we, especially I should be ashamed for indulging it.
How many names have you posted under, imdw?
JD (a5fca8) — 9/23/2010 @ 7:48 amOMG, you are still debating imdw and the stupidity ?
I have one final comment and then I will leave you to your follies. Spain, as a result of the income from the colonies in the New World, was the richest country in the world in the 16th century. King Philip II was an honestly devout Catholic and spent the entire treasury of Spain in his efforts to spread the religion, particularly to the Protestant England and the Netherlands. Spain has been poor since his reign.
I see the current obsession with global warming, whether the planet is warming or not, as a similar situation. Europe, long accustomed to dissembling in such matters, has made promises it will never keep. Asia is too smart and too hungry to even give lip service to the ideas of Al Gore and company.
But here, in a country that has been reasonably well governed (mostly by leaving people alone) for two centuries, we have a militant left that will bankrupt the nation in the interest of carbon demonization. The whole financial crisis was brought about by an attempt to create ends without means. I think it is Victor David Hanson who notes that Democrats saw that middle class people owned homes and went to college. Democrats concluded that, if you helped people buy homes and go to college, they would become middle class. They did not recognize that the symbols represented the result of certain behavior, deferring gratification, lawful behavior and family formation. You can’t give the symbols to people who do not exhibit middle class behavior and expect them to change.
Now, we are governed by people who do not understand economics. We see illustrations right here how ignorant some of their followers are. Obama says, “At some point you have made enough money.” They don’t understand incentives because theirs have always been different. The reason government employees overwhelmingly support Democrats should be obvious. The reason fewer Republicans are interested in running for office should be equally obvious. One groups wants a secure job and the ability to boss other people around. The other group is more interested in building a business and maybe making some serious money.
Unless we get the power group that doesn’t understand economics out of power, we could follow the path of Spain. One of the lefty blogs the other day commented on a tea party candidate in some eastern state, maybe Connecticut, saying that they knew he was crazy because he thought global warming was caused by sunspots ! They are truly clueless and have bought the whole Al Gore yarn. We can’t have these people running the economy.
Mike K (568408) — 9/23/2010 @ 7:51 amNope. You’re still arguing with him. Is he lying about you? If not, don’t let him upset you.
Comment by Patterico — 9/22/2010 @ 11:16 pm
Mr. P., I had to read this statement twice. You are a hero and knight in shining armor when it comes to fighting back against lies, untruths, omissions and spin. Seriously, your work to expose and clarify what you perceive to be misleading statements from the Dog Trainer to Levin to Brad to Weigel to “Ellie Light” to—whomever, is legendary and respected.
elissa (6281f9) — 9/23/2010 @ 8:15 am–
There are some posters who may indeed come here specifically to “take over” and to purposely dumb-down the threads. Part of the plan is to make statements and claims as though they are accepted fact, even though they are not, and present them in a manner which is an ever moving target. Some other commenters, who in a sense are following your own model, feel they must engage these falsehoods and mis-statements in order to correct the record which is now sitting out on the internet. This almost always results in eye glazing back and forths such as you are reacting to. Occasionally the “debate” degenerates into name calling which is not right or pleasant–but that usually only occurs after a considerable time of unfulfilling anti-intellectual discussion before hand. So if the choice for commenters is (1) to “engage” the malicious spin to correct it but thereby help enable a threadjack, (2) leave the site out of frustration and disinterest, or (3) ignore the mis-statements and logic-leaps and try to pretend they are not there even as they sit there like a cancer, and attempt to carry on a reasonable discussion with other posters, what is your recommendation? Or are there other options you can see and suggest?
“I know, imadimwit! The inflation fairy steals it at night and hides it in your mother’s basement!”
It’s quite simple: Inflation moves wealth between debtors and creditors.
“All you succeeded in doing was showing a candidate didn’t think it was Constitutional, a far cry from your original claim. ”
It not being constitutional would go quite a long way to destroying it. But tell me, where should one go for claims on what the tea party would like to achieve?
“Spain has been poor since his reign.”
Spain’s GDP per capita is something like 30K a year. That’s not that poor. It’s higher than Israel and New Zealand and not too far from the UK.
imdw (ce700c) — 9/23/2010 @ 8:15 amelissa – It posted a fine example right after your comment.
If you don’t know who to contact, it is because they do not have a structure what would allow them to take said position. You may want him to speak on their behalf, but he does not, no matter how many times to try to do so.
JD (a5fca8) — 9/23/2010 @ 8:25 am“It’s quite simple: Inflation moves wealth between debtors and creditors.”
WTF does that mean?
Please enlighten me. A good troll’s comments can at least resemble those of a sentient
KobeClan (39eaf5) — 9/23/2010 @ 8:50 amlife-form, not just the breying of a jack-ass.
I’m more than happy to be wrong
Comment by imdw — 9/22/2010 @ 7:05 pm
— Sometimes you seem to be positively ecstatic about it. You should make it a part of your Internet signature.
Icy Texan (a8053b) — 9/23/2010 @ 9:19 amTruly, this is precisely why people should not solely rely on news to stay informed. They should be doing their homework and determine what stories matter to them and what the facts are. There is no doubt that news outlets only print and discuss what they feel is relevant, not all the facts.
media (846aaf) — 9/23/2010 @ 9:47 am“WTF does that mean?”
Let me just repeat from the Mises Institute
“The first fact that needs to be noted in answering such questions is that inflation is detrimental to all creditors. The higher prices rise, the lower will fall the purchasing power of the principal and interest payments due. The dollar which was loaned out had a higher purchasing ability, could provide more goods, than the dollar which is paid back.”
imdw (14df54) — 9/23/2010 @ 10:17 amThis just in: Inflation is still bad.
In other news: Water is still wet.
Icy Texan (a8053b) — 9/23/2010 @ 10:44 amDude.
Now that you have proved any troll can post a quote, please tell this unenlightened one what it means,
cuz, much like your anatomy, I believe you have the significance of inflation ass-backwards.
Oh! BTW, where DOES the money go? I can’t wait for your wisdom.
KobeClan (39eaf5) — 9/23/2010 @ 11:04 am“Now that you have proved any troll can post a quote, please tell this unenlightened one what it means,
cuz, much like your anatomy, I believe you have the significance of inflation ass-backwards.”
You really don’t get how inflation erodes the purchasing power of a nominal unit of currency, and thus effects a transfer between creditors and debtors when that creditor/debtor relationship is denominated nominally and did not take that inflation into account?
“Oh! BTW, where DOES the money go? I can’t wait for your wisdom.”
As to who gains when prices fall, you’ll never know. You’ll just have to sit there thinking of all the things you can’t afford.
imdw (017d51) — 9/23/2010 @ 11:24 amDude:
“You really don’t get how inflation erodes the purchasing power of a nominal unit of currency, and thus effects a transfer between
creditors and debtors when that creditor/debtor relationship is denominated nominally and did not take that inflation into account?”
Another nice quote. Again, what does it mean?
KobeClan (39eaf5) — 9/23/2010 @ 11:41 amAs a basement-dwelling troll, is inflation good or bad for you?
Ex: If you have to borrow money from your mother to replace your worn-out inflatable girlfriend
and take five years to pay her back, isn’t inflation good for you?
“Again, what does it mean?”
Have you tried looking up the words you don’t understand? I’m sorry but I don’t have an economics primer website handy. The wikipedia page on inflation has some general explanations of its effects, but I think they’re not very extensive.
Maybe let’s take it one step at a time. Do you understand how inflation changes the purchasing power of a unit of currency?
imdw (14df54) — 9/23/2010 @ 11:50 amHonestly, is inflation good or bad? I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, that you don’t have an opinion.
Its probably the only thing about which you haven’t expressed your opinion.
Got dizzy runnin’ the rabbit hole tunnels too fast?
KobeClan (39eaf5) — 9/23/2010 @ 12:01 pm“Honestly, is inflation good or bad? I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, that you don’t have an opinion.”
The answer is it depends on how much inflation, what kinds of social consequences it has, and your relative economic position. If it wipes out your debts, it is good for you. If it wipes out your savings, it is bad for you. If it causes a financial crisis and a rise in reactionary xenophobic populism, then its going to suck no matter what happens to your debts or your savings.
imdw (4829b2) — 9/23/2010 @ 1:00 pm“Honestly, is inflation good or bad? I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, that you don’t have an opinion.”
Iit depends on how much inflation, what kinds of social consequences it has, and your relative economic position. If it wipes out your debts, it is good for you. If it wipes out your savings, it is bad for you. If it causes a financial crisis and a rise in reactionary xenophobic populism, then its going to suck no matter what happens to your debts or your savings.
imdw (3ac9fb) — 9/23/2010 @ 1:01 pm“Do you understand how inflation changes the purchasing power of a unit of currency?”
imdw – I believe most of the people on this thread understand this far better than you, having much more life experience, and are merely having fun watching you flail around try to explain concepts you have not actually dealt with in real life. My big question is why is your flailing directly relevant right now to the topic of the post?
Also, echoing my comment that I am more than happy to let you show your ignorance and beclown yourself, tour following comment was PURE COMEDY GOLD:
“Oh we spent a long time in a credit boom that was a bad idea overall. It didn’t just hit housing.”
Back to the books, grasshopper.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/23/2010 @ 1:03 pmRacist xenophobic reactionary populists. Now, look! BUNNIES!!!
JD (04ebf2) — 9/23/2010 @ 1:27 pm“I believe most of the people on this thread understand this far better than you, having much more life experience”
It’s not really a “life experience” thing. I’ve visited places under hyperinflation, but anyone can grasp this concept.
But to be fair, JD seemed to resist the idea that a bank was getting less than it bargained for when it received back the same amount of dollars but with less purchasing power. So we can see that there may be a lack of understanding here.
imdw (14df54) — 9/23/2010 @ 1:32 pmNow you are just lying about me. The bank got back exactly what they agreed to, and the likelihood of inflation/deflation is factored into the interest rate they agreed to. I ut seems like this is a very difficult subject for you. I bet you really struggled with long division. Or the idea of carrying the 1 …
JD (bf6262) — 9/23/2010 @ 1:43 pmIt seems like the only time you are actually honest is when you call people things like reactionary xenophobic populists. Not that it is true, it is demonstrably not, but it is something you seem to believe. Did you get a little tingle when you typed that?
Oh, the lovely leftist “I have been places you silly wingnutz would never experience” was precious too.
JD (f89659) — 9/23/2010 @ 1:48 pm“It’s not really a “life experience” thing.”
imdw – Pardon me. I thought maybe that was why you could not describe the basics of a car loan or buying and selling a house yesterday afternoon. It was stupidity instead. My mistake.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/23/2010 @ 1:59 pmJD – Whatever you do, don’t bring up the Jooooos.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/23/2010 @ 2:01 pm“I’ve visited places under hyperinflation”
imdw – Name them.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/23/2010 @ 2:03 pmimdw seems to think that bankers sit around with crossed-fingers, hoping & praying that inflation never comes, and NOT factoring it into the terms of the loans they make. They, of course, DO factor it in, as well as tailoring their own investments to achieve the necessary returns they need to remain solvent. A huge spike in inflation can hurt them, obviously; but, normal inflation levels don’t touch them all that much. They compensate in much the same way as everyday investors do: they diversify their portfolio, investing in higher-yield (if riskier) stocks & bonds, as well as holding on to more of their money — tightening loan criteria.
Icy Texan (a8053b) — 9/23/2010 @ 2:09 pmIcy Texan is right, of course. The concept of inflation has not escaped these evil banks.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/23/2010 @ 2:12 pm“I’ve visited places under hypeventilation”
There. FTFY!
Icy Texan (a8053b) — 9/23/2010 @ 2:14 pmI’ve visited places under hyperinflation, but anyone can grasp this concept.
So if I follow your logic correctly, after I spend a few weeks in Botswana I’ll be a de facto expert in the tsetse fly.
imdw – Name them.
My pants, for starters.
Comment by imadouchebag
Dmac (d61c0d) — 9/23/2010 @ 2:15 pmimdw visits reality hypothetically.
Icy Texan (a8053b) — 9/23/2010 @ 2:23 pm“reactionary xenophobic populism”?
Dude: Please go re-read your handbook on extremist parties:
COLUMN A:
reactionary
xenophobic
populist
repressive
You’re only allowed to pick two from column A.
KobeClan (39eaf5) — 9/23/2010 @ 3:07 pmHow many times did you have to repeat troll school?
You should know better than to skip Bruter’s lectures!
Where is imdw?
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/23/2010 @ 4:46 pmHe’s visiting places of hyperinflation.
Guess he DID get that new inflatable girlfriend.
Watch those PSIs, bro.
Was hoping he had actually heard of Bruter. Would actually have a little respect for him if he had.
KobeClan (39eaf5) — 9/23/2010 @ 5:08 pm“So if I follow your logic correctly, after I spend a few weeks in Botswana I’ll be a de facto expert in the tsetse fly. ”
That would be the opposite of following the part where I said “anyone can grasp this concept.”
“The bank got back exactly what they agreed to, and the likelihood of inflation/deflation is factored into the interest rate they agreed to.”
But if inflation that they weren’t expecting happened, what they got back was worth less than what they agreed to get back, worth less than what they expected to get back. How hard is this for you to grasp? How many different ways and to how much specificity must i set up a scenario to get you to understand this? How hard was it for you to grasp this from the first moment i set up a simple model of a bank expecting to get back 10K in payments from a car that inflation now has priced at 20K?
“They, of course, DO factor it in,”
What if they’re wrong about what the inflation turns out to be? That’s the point. Of course there are others with income that is nominally denominated that don’t get to set their rates, like people on fixed incomes. When rates are in a few percentage points, being off your inflation expectation by even a single percentage point is huge.
“imdw – Name them.”
I visited Brazil in the 1980s.
“JD – Whatever you do, don’t bring up the Jooooos.”
Now that you mention it, Israel also went through a hyperinflation. They curbed it in 1985.
imdw (017d51) — 9/23/2010 @ 5:35 pmOMG ! Still ?
Patrick, you are more patient than I would be.
Mike K (568408) — 9/23/2010 @ 5:39 pmMeanwhile, its becoming obvious to all but the trolls that the Obama administration’s stimulus programs, like the cash for clunkers program are utter failures.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/23/2010 @ 5:58 pmSPQR
Its obvious to the trolls, too.
I was hoping Patterico’s invite would lead to a higher quality of troll.
If imdw is all you got, I’ll troll around elsewhere.
One would thing even a troll wouldn’t waste his time with a post like #219.
KobeClan (39eaf5) — 9/23/2010 @ 6:06 pmSomeone must be paying him by the word.
Outside of some rare exotics, and possibly the Mercedes SLS AMG, has inflation or anything ever caused a car to double in value within the course of its loan period? A new car almost always depreciates, and the idea that it could double in value seems, well … ridiculous. Actually, the only way I could ever see something like that would be if someone like iamadimwit got control of the economy.
JD (8ded14) — 9/23/2010 @ 6:13 pmJD, nowhere outside of Zimbabwe.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/23/2010 @ 6:23 pmEven then, I would be shocked if things that have always depreciated suddenly appreciated 200% from its new purchase price within the time period of a new car loan. Maybe I am way off base. Am I?
JD (8ded14) — 9/23/2010 @ 6:27 pm“Outside of some rare exotics, and possibly the Mercedes SLS AMG, has inflation or anything ever caused a car to double in value within the course of its loan period? ”
No it was just a hypothetical to display an effect. I could have picked a small percent amount of interest rate and a small percent amount of inflation. But this was meant to just isolate the purchasing power effect. You ever use a model or a hypothetical to demonstrate a point?
You understand this. Now you’re just pretending you don’t. Because you’ve run out things to bitch about but not your desire to bitch.
imdw (14df54) — 9/23/2010 @ 6:40 pmJD
Why are you wasting your time? Wealth is an illusion, as is imdw’s knowledge of economics.
“Purchasing power effect”? His phrase generating software needs an upgrade. That phrase has been obsolete for decades!
Never overfeed the trolls!
KobeClan (39eaf5) — 9/23/2010 @ 6:55 pmNo, imdw, you’re just not making any sense. Stop acting like a victim, and stop trying to stir up a mess.
You must have figured out by now that it’s a waste of your time.
The reason your hypos have to be unrealistic, or even just logically faulty, is that your underlying point is wrong.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/23/2010 @ 6:56 pm“The reason your hypos have to be unrealistic, or even just logically faulty, is that your underlying point is wrong.”
So it is wrong that creditors get back a dollar that has less purchasing power than the dollar they expected to get when unexpected inflation occurs? Sorry dude. It’s not.
imdw (cd4b7a) — 9/23/2010 @ 7:03 pmHow many names have you posted under, imdw?
I haven’t run out of ideas, I just wanted to point out, yet again, how mendoucheous you are. That is all.
JD (8ded14) — 9/23/2010 @ 7:05 pmWe have to give iamadimwit credit. In the land of unicorns farting fairy dust and shltting skittles, when inflation occurs in such a manner that it does not in the real world, maybe its hypothetical could be true. Problem is, it has nothing to do with anything but to satisfy its desire to drag the topic away from one that is uncomfortable for it and its ilk.
JD (8ded14) — 9/23/2010 @ 7:08 pmBest moment in this oft-tortured thread: Mike K. uttering, OMG!
Shocking, I tell you.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 9/23/2010 @ 7:18 pmDana – I chuckled when I read that too.
Sorry, Dr. K. I am flawed.
JD (8ded14) — 9/23/2010 @ 7:22 pmThat’s tautological. You can build any argument that way, if you don’t really want to demonstrate anything.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/23/2010 @ 7:22 pm“That’s tautological. ”
That’s another way of saying “correct.” All I wanted to demonstrate was how inflation transfers wealth.
“We have to give iamadimwit credit. In the land of unicorns farting fairy dust and shltting skittles, when inflation occurs in such a manner that it does not in the real world, maybe its hypothetical could be true.”
In the real world inflation doesn’t always match the expectations set in interest rates, nor does it only affect relationships where people even have the power to set their interest rates — see, for example, people on fixed incomes. The hypothetical just illustrates this, without needing to “be true.”
imdw (7b0243) — 9/23/2010 @ 7:32 pmimdw, sure, it’s true that unexpected inflation means that money lost more value than expected.
So what? That doesn’t mean you’re correct beyond this circular ‘point’ of yours.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/23/2010 @ 7:38 pmThe hypothetical does not exist, and has not existed. So, its ability to be translated into a real world application are fairly limited.
JD (8ded14) — 9/23/2010 @ 7:38 pmI’d mention, to anyone who isn’t familiar, that you have a habit of arguing this way, making points that are unlikely or even wrong, and then pretending you were just arguing that 1+1=2. But it looks like most people get what you’re doing.
Anyone grants the most banal premise, and you start your victory lap.
If that makes you happy, knock yourself out.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/23/2010 @ 7:41 pmimdw
Wealth is an illusion. We get back to your original question; “Where does it go”?
When you were “in Brazil”, who wound up with “the wealth”?
If inflation transfers wealth, were did it go?
Guess you gave up looking in your basement. Sorry ’bout that!
You have a static mind, living in a dynamic world.
Simple question you posed. Still waiting for an answer. Guess the correct one is above your pay grade.
KobeClan (39eaf5) — 9/23/2010 @ 7:41 pmimdw wants to return to a political monetary policy last seriously proposed by L.Frank Baum in the book “The Wizard of Oz”.
And Democrats call us “extremists” … unbelievable.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/23/2010 @ 7:47 pmSPQR
We have a winner!
Let’s put the thread to sleep.
KobeClan (39eaf5) — 9/23/2010 @ 7:52 pm“All I wanted to demonstrate was how inflation transfers wealth.”
imdw – Why here since the U.S. is not currently experiencing significant inflation and it makes your diversion completely unrelated to the topic of the thread. You would have been better off saving it for your professors, who would have flunked you on your demonstration.
“I visited Brazil in the 1980s.”
That’s one place, but you said places, plural. And what do you remember from visiting a place under hyperinflation?
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/23/2010 @ 7:56 pm“imdw, sure, it’s true that unexpected inflation means that money lost more value than expected.”
More than that — it means creditors lost and debtors gained.
“The hypothetical does not exist, and has not existed.”
It’s almost as if you’re arguing what the word “hypothetical” means — a supposition, and assumption.
“If inflation transfers wealth, were did it go?”
It transfers it between debtors and creditors. Have you not been paying attention?
imdw (150cd7) — 9/23/2010 @ 7:57 pm“imdw – Why here since the U.S. is not currently experiencing significant inflation and it makes your diversion completely unrelated to the topic of the thread”
See, deflation can transfer wealth too.
“That’s one place, but you said places, plural.”
I visited more than one place there. And more than one time. But why does it matter?
“And what do you remember from visiting a place under hyperinflation?”
That it was good to keep dollars! But yeah I don’t see the relevance — but someone did mention life experience. I did say that you didn’t need it.
imdw (4829b2) — 9/23/2010 @ 8:01 pm“imdw – Why here since the U.S. is not currently experiencing significant inflation and it makes your diversion completely unrelated to the topic of the thread”
See, deflation can transfer wealth too.
“That’s one place, but you said places, plural.”
I visited more than one place there. And more than one time. But why does it matter?
“And what do you remember from visiting a place under hyperinflation?”
That it was good to keep my wealth in dollars. But yeah I don’t see the relevance — but someone did mention life experience. I did say that you didn’t need it.
imdw (9af31a) — 9/23/2010 @ 8:03 pmWhy, yes he does remember – he bought a used Yugo and it immediately appreciated 1,000%. Man, you can lost a lot of IQ points just by reading his inane prattle.
that you have a habit of arguing this way, making points that are unlikely or even wrong, and then pretending you were just arguing that 1+1=2. But it looks like most people get what you’re doing.
imadouchebag’s well known for not only moving the goalposts, he also runs away with them, at times buries them, and other times tows them far out to sea on barges when necessary.
Dmac (d61c0d) — 9/23/2010 @ 8:03 pmAnyone get the idea that it has no freaking clue how wealth is created?
JD (8ded14) — 9/23/2010 @ 8:10 pmOoooo, just tap your silver slippers, Dorothy.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/23/2010 @ 8:11 pmDuh, I think I’ve finally “got” it. You guys are all having fun taking turns posting as imdw—each vying to say something dumber or sillier than the last post and then answering it. There is no imdw is there? You’re just trying to punk me, Mike K. and Dana, right? I feel so violated.
elissa (6281f9) — 9/23/2010 @ 8:18 pmI wish that were true, elissa. But sadly, it is not.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/23/2010 @ 8:19 pmNot only is there an imdw, elissa, but it has a lot of sockpuppets that it utilizes as well. When it gets banned, and it will, it always does, it will just try to avoid the ban by creating another nome de blog because he just can’t quit us.
JD (8ded14) — 9/23/2010 @ 8:24 pm“I visited more than one place there. And more than one time. But why does it matter?”
imdw – So some places in Brazil were experiencing hyperinflation, but others were not? I’m confused.
I’m also surprised you have any lasting memories of the 1980s, especially ones that caused you to think economic thoughts, since you were so young at the time.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/23/2010 @ 8:31 pmWell, that’s another of my fabulous conspiracy theories shot to heck. But, as always with me, hope for a brighter tomorrow springs eternal.
elissa (6281f9) — 9/23/2010 @ 8:32 pmI really want Mike K. to come back and give imdw an Econ.101 ass-whupping. He always delivers these ‘little talks’ in a lovely melange of disdain, gusto and deliciously dry humor.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 9/23/2010 @ 8:33 pm“I visited more than one place there. And more than one time. But why does it matter?”
imdw – Recall you are the one who brought the subject up. It must have mattered to you, otherwise, why bring it up. Derrrrrrr.
“But yeah I don’t see the relevance — but someone did mention life experience. I did say that you didn’t need it.”
imdw – From your failed attempts on this thread to describe the impact of inflation on wealth transfers or purchasing power to and from various parties for whatever reason you wanted to do it, you have not made the reason clear, you have made it clear you have not had the life experiences of financing the purchase of a car or a house. You also recite, after referring to notes, textbook explanations of economic concepts, rather than real world examples, just as you attempted last year when trying to explain the vast multiplier impacts of Obama’s failed stimulus bill. People with any real life experience would have diagnosed the bill as a loser from the start if they were intellectually honest. Perhaps you lack both life experience and intellectual honesty. I think that must be it.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/23/2010 @ 8:46 pmForget imdw and praise allah
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/2740622,ayers-denied-emeritus-status-092310.article
elissa (6281f9) — 9/23/2010 @ 8:56 pmimdw:
You say:
There certainly may be. And to be fair, it seems to be on your part.
You seem to resist the idea that a bank never ever gets back the same amount of dollars, because a bank never lends money for free.
So we can see that there may be a lack of understanding here.
daleyrocks has patiently tried to explain this to you. Seldom have I seen a lack of understanding coupled with such a haughty attitude, as I have seen in your many snotty little responses on this thread.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/23/2010 @ 9:03 pmElissa, thanks for the Ayers link. Put a smile on my face. Albeit, it’s tempered by the reality that he isn’t in prison. I don’t trust the way that worked out for the politically connected Ayers in Chicago.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/23/2010 @ 9:07 pmelissa – That is very sweet indeed. Chickens coming home to roost as someone once said.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/23/2010 @ 9:10 pmPatterico – I just feel badly I’ve contributed to a monumental threadjack on a great post. imdw will just keep bouncing back for more.
I would have no problems with you removing all of imdw’s comments and those responding to them from the thread.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/23/2010 @ 9:14 pmCan you imagine Sarah Palin or John Mccain or George W bush palling around with someone who actually went out of their way to honor a successful assassin of a popular American politician?
It is so off the wall that Obama got a pass for this.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/23/2010 @ 9:16 pmKarl’s great. It would take me a week to even attempt one of his posts, and… let’s be honest… it would be crap.
What is Karl’s educational background?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/23/2010 @ 9:19 pm“What is Karl’s educational background?”
Dustin – Having met Karl, if I told you, I would have to shoot you. Then Karl would have to shoot me. Or he could just kill me with his mind. I’ve seen him do it. It’s not a pretty sight.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/23/2010 @ 9:23 pmelissa,
Your comment was interesting. Any response I give may be flawed, and I am open to having those flaws pointed out, but here is my gut-level response.
I like having liberal dissenters around because they can keep you on your toes. Also, genuine dissenters tend to get labeled as trolls at blogs that follow a certain mindset. So I am reluctant to ban people just because they are considered trolls.
Now: the question becomes: when they become silly, as imdw has in this thread by apparently pretending that banks lend money for free, what do you do? Ignore them? Or fight them on every front?
I have engaged this sort of problem before, on a different scale: where I am assessing the silly things said by other bloggers or pundits. These are sometimes tougher calls, because the bloggers or pundits who attack me often have similar or even much larger audiences than I have — as opposed to commenters like imdw, who are minor commenters on a single medium-sized blog like this one.
And these pundits are often lying about me, as opposed to imdw, who is generally just sort of wanking and saying silly things.
So you compare influential pundits lying about me and my positions personally, as opposed to some minor anonymous commenters here on one blog saying silly things that are so easily refuted that they may as well be ignored.
And yet I still get people here getting their panties in a bunch about some anonymous little hack commenting here about nonsense, while I have national radio hosts turning their 200,000+ followers against me with lies and insults. I have bloggers misrepresenting my posts in a way that creates a narrative about me that will last for years.
And somehow, I’m supposed to worry about how imdw is ruining your day. I do not refer to you specifically, elissa, but rather to the commenters here who get so upset over his comments.
I get little to no support when people lie about me. Maybe one or two commenters will go off and tell a powerful nemesis of mine that they are bemirching my name. They are usually blown off, have their comments deleted, etc.
Meanwhile people spend hours worrying about some goddamned anonymous troll here.
Part of the reason I get involved in these internet spats is that almost nobody ever goes to another site to set other liars straight. If you people spent 1/10 the time defending me against unfair attacks as you do fighting with people like imdw over NOTHING, maybe I wouldn’t feel the need to write posts defending myself. And I could spend the time doing investigative blogging and getting corrections from newspapers and such.
So while I get your point, and understand the desire to correct falsehoods and silliness, I remain flabbergasted that people are so little willing to spend time, personal capital, and effort defending me against bullshit — while you all spin yourselves into circles worrying about anonybullshit from imdw.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/23/2010 @ 9:31 pmShorter last comment: if I can withstand Mark Levin (with over 200,000 Facebook followers) making me an enemy over his own lies; if I can withstand years of prevarication and misrepresentation from a certain other blogger so beloved of some here — all with precious little defense of me — then surely you people can put up with freaking anonymous nothing imdw.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/23/2010 @ 9:37 pmPat,
That blogger has nothing to say, nothing that matters
EPWJ (17f94c) — 9/23/2010 @ 9:41 pmPatterico: I had never thought of that – that you would appreciate some defense in all this. I don’t know why…
In my own defense – and I’m sure I speak for a lot of people here – I try to ignore all trolls, whether or not they wrap themselves in a shroud of tautological intellectualism (regularly punctuated by jabs of catty hypocrisy).
As for Mark Levin… I’d never even heard of Mark Levin before all of this. I don’t give a fuck about Mark Levin. In some sense, I don’t think you should give a fuck about Mark Levin. The people here have a great deal of respect for you; and the people smearing you aren’t worth two shits.
But I can see why you do. You have a reputation in the blogging word, and it’s being run through the mill by a bunch of elitist assholes.
If pushback is what you’re asking for, then… I think we owe you that, in a very real sense.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/23/2010 @ 11:03 pmBut what does that entail? At some level, there’s a hesitancy to defend someone who has demonstrated a decided aptitude for defending himself. It feels presumptuous – and risks an age-old rebuke, i.e. “I can defend myself, thanks…”
But that doesn’t seem to be where you are on this. So we can be a little more proactive, I take it.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 9/23/2010 @ 11:08 pmPatterico – You are in good company on rage-monkey Levin’s list of Non-True Conservatives. He was keeping his powder dry on Chris Christie. Levin likes his videos taking on union greed, but thinks he’s a squish on immigration, the GZM and some other things. I think he also supported Castle.
Levin may find himself pretty lonely if he sticks to his all or nothing approach.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/23/2010 @ 11:52 pm“You seem to resist the idea that a bank never ever gets back the same amount of dollars, because a bank never lends money for free”
Actually I said over and over that that that idea is fine. Like here:
“Indeed, there’s an expectation of inflation in any credit transaction. And the model of the car loan didn’t include that. If you wanted to more closely model reality you’d be talking about the wealth transfers effected by unexpected inflation/deflation. But for a simple display of how purchasing power changes, the model works.”
and here:
“When rates are in a few percentage points, being off your inflation expectation by even a single percentage point is huge.”
Of course the first example I gave was just a hypo to display the purchasing power effect. Of course that’s not a “real” example of a bank lending money to buy something and the next day 100% inflation happening. Of course inflation can still hurt banks even when they don’t lend for free. It still has the effect of reducing the purchasing power of what they expect to receive.
“You also recite, after referring to notes, textbook explanations of economic concepts, rather than real world examples,”
The real world example would be any time there’s inflation or deflation that wasn’t locked into the interest rate set on a credit transaction. Look over history and find times when real interest rates were negative.
“daleyrocks has patiently tried to explain this to you”
Oh yeah? I missed it when he gave us this:
“JD – Whatever you do, don’t bring up the Jooooos.”
Reminds me a bit of the dude with a few black friends that feels entitled to drop the n-word.
imdw (53b665) — 9/24/2010 @ 4:46 amHmmm. One of my comments got eaten. It provided more context for the other (visible) one.
Leviticus (ba06cf) — 9/24/2010 @ 8:34 amOh, no. There it is.
Leviticus (ba06cf) — 9/24/2010 @ 8:34 amimdw – I think the right thing for you to do is to admit the obvious, that you are not here in good faith or to add value.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/24/2010 @ 8:55 amTwo things:
First, Patterico.
I am a regular reader and rare poster who considers this blog to be in the top five of all time (from my perspective, conservative
Democrat (I know, I know)). I find myself constantly defending you at other sites. I keep reminding others that not completely
agreeing with someone does not make them totally wrong. Seems simplistic, but IMHO, I see this attitude over and over.
(Best example is single-issue So-Cons).
Persevere. Your voice is being heard.
Second, Trolls.
Useful. If used properly, they can force you to think. Why do you believe something and how do you defend it?
Are your beliefs based on facts? Are you letting your emotions cloud your thinking?
imdw’s comment “where does the money go?” piqued my interest and, not having had to deal with inflation since Carter’s
“Misery Index” days, made me review my knowledge of inflation and its effects.
The trouble with imdw is he’s a lazy troll.Why you let this moss-covered twit get under your skin is beyond me.
Feed him a couple of times, knock him around a few times, than ignore him and he’ll head back to his basement.
imdw’s knowledge of economics is less than my cats’. At least they understand the laws of supply and demand.
And always keep your troll from getting near the rabbit hole. Their tiny minds wander. So back to the original topic of this thread:
The only difference between Kinsley’s and imadimwit’s appalling lack of knowledge about economics is Kinsley’s honesty.
KobeClan (39eaf5) — 9/24/2010 @ 4:49 pmComments?
Serious fan of the website, lots of your articles have truly helped me out. Awaiting up-dates!
Buy Jerseys (a8de5d) — 6/2/2011 @ 11:03 pm