Why do you call bald faced liars intellectually lazy?

Welcome the wonderful world of Cognitive Dissonance.

Facts are meaningless unless you believe. If this didn't lead the entire world down the road to ruin, it would be mildly amusing and somewhat sad.

Yeah it was hard to believe that RedState post at first. It doesn't jive with Krugman's position at all. If you follow the links through to Henke's post(s) you see that Yousafedeh is being lazy at best; he's exaggerating Krugman's quotes and they are all from 2001.

Henke's not being dishonest, really. But his quotes lack context. Yousafedeh drew the wrong conclusions and ran with them.

Maybe Pejman Yousafedeh is the reincarnation of Tim Russert, because isn't this pretty much how Russert built his whole career? Take an old quote, have the guest say times have changed, repeat for 60 minutes, Go Bills!!

Krugman used the word "the." Ya know who else used "the" a lot. Milton Friedman. And Ronald Reagan. Even Barry Goldwater. So you see, Krugman must be at heart in favor of conservative policies.

Take that, you crazy liberals!

Why do you call bald faced liars intellectually lazy?

Because they absolutely love to tell themselves that they're smarter than everyone else. If they're liars, they're still smarter than everyone -- see, they told lies that all of those stupid sheeple believed!

Pointing out that they're intellectually lazy at best, if not outright stupid for not being able to figure out Henke's original post, hits them where it stings.

To their credit, RedState is at least claiming interest in reality.

It's tricky stuff, though and the learning curve is steep. Cut 'em some slack.

Intellectually Lazy

Yousafedeh is like a child repeating a term that he heard grown-ups use, but the meaning was completely over his head.

No, no! It's all about facts! We have the courage to face facts!

Especially when they are facts they made up themselves.

Just out of curiosity, do such writers really have any interest in persuading, or are they primarily or exclusively interested simply in reinforcing a belief structure, perhaps as a necessary rite of passage?

Learn your catechism, profess your faith loudly and persistently, elbow your way into a couple of high-profile publicity opportunities, and behold! The doors of opportunity open to comfortable sinecures in the structure of the ruling class.

It works in the Catholic church, it works in the Chinese government, it works in American business, why shouldn't it work in the conservative "intelligentsia"?

Just a hypothesis...

Glad to see that you've got your sea legs back, Hilzoy!

When will the public begin to see liars for what they are?

When they can't pay for their food, their gasoline, their rent, their heating, their healthcare, their medicine....

In other words, about now.

I wonder if Rove would honor a request to add my name to his list?

It's like those movie review blurbs on a print ad for a movie. The print ad says "This movie is . . . amazing." The actual review said "This movie is one of those thrillers, that if it were produced by John Doe and were written by decent writers, would be amazing."

Snip, snip and the review matches the marketing!

Just out of curiosity, do such writers really have any interest in persuading, or are they primarily or exclusively interested simply in reinforcing a belief structure, perhaps as a necessary rite of passage?
--------------------------

In Japan a sarariman might have to sing the company song each and every morning, but on the wingnut welfare circuit a pejman only has to pipe up every now and then.

What's really weird is that anyone who knows anything knows that monetary policy can't possibly solve this current recession because real interest rates are extremely close to zero. There's no room for monetary policy to work. That's part of what a liquidity trap is. And this part of it, anyway, isn't mysterious. If real interest rates are near zero, then in a recession monetary policy can't be effective in fighting it. It's obvious.

The anti-Keynesians aren't arguing that monetary policy should be used to fight this recession, they're arguing that monetary policy itself is the cause of the recession and that Keynesian deficit spending will make things worse.

It's pretty amusing when a conservative who claims to be "reality based" can't even get correct the ideology he's appealing to.

The anti-Keynesians aren't arguing that monetary policy should be used to fight this recession, they're arguing that monetary policy itself is the cause of the recession and that Keynesian deficit spending will make things worse.

I prefer to the term "neo-Hooverites," since it tags them with a potent historical example of their wrongheadedness. It also avoids use of the name Keynes, which unfortunately has been so maligned recently by the very same right-wing noise machine that it is misinterpreted to the point that some less-informed observers may think "anti-Keynesian" is a good thing.

"I prefer to the term 'neo-Hooverites,' since it tags them with a potent historical example of their wrongheadedness. It also avoids use of the name Keynes, which unfortunately has been so maligned recently by the very same right-wing noise machine that it is misinterpreted to the point that some less-informed observers may think 'anti-Keynesian' is a good thing."

All very true, and "neo-Hooverites" is a powerful rhetorical tool to use against these folk.

However, in general, I don't really care for this sort of intentional framing. I don't like it when it's done against me or my "side", and I don't like to encourage it by doing it myself. I tend to subscribe to the viewpoint that it's best to call people what they choose to call themselves; thus, "anti-Keynesians" accurately describes all those who oppose Keynes for whatever reason (well thought out, or not); while avoids saddling them with the pejorative label "neo-Hooverite".

Yes, yes, yes: this sort of thinking is arguably why the Repubs often "win" and the Dems often "lose". However, I'd point to the recent election as proof that we can win without emulating our enemies.

As a sworn defender of the Constitution, and as a member of the reality-based community (and I'll grant right off the bat that the scurrilous bootlickers at RedState have a severe mental deficiency that prohibits their even contemplating that I---or anyone, for that matter---can be both), I now find it to be my patriotic duty to declare that Pejman Yousefzadeh is both a dumb and unpatriotic conservative.

But then again, all the conservatives who were neither---and the majority that were merely one or the other---died off many long years ago....

[Henke] didn't get it wrong; Yousefzadeh did.

As much as I hate to disagree with you, Hilzoy, I strongly disagree with this. Henke perpetrated a fraud in the linked (Dec. 6) post.

Read those quotes of Krugman's in Henke's December 6 post:

* "Can we pump up the economy with additional tax cuts or temporary public spending? Not safely..."
* "What about fiscal policy? Some liberals have recently [argued] that the economic slump is a reason to put aside promises to protect the Social Security surplus. But those liberals are making a big mistake."
* "[A]lmost all economists now agree with [Milton Friedman's] position that monetary policy, not fiscal policy, is the tool of choice for fighting recessions."

Pretty one-sided, huh? Krugman is for monetary policy, period, no ifs, ands, or buts.

But Henke provides a link back to a much more honest Jan. 20 post at qando (http://www.qando.net/Details.aspx?Entry=7688) where he provides those quotes more fully, and you know what? The full quotes tell a very different story, where Krugman notes (1) that the problem with fiscal stimulus in a garden-variety recession is that by the time it has time to act, the recession is over, and (2) monetary policy is ineffective if you're headed into a liquidity trap.

In his January 20 post, Henke notes triumphantly that the Fed's interest rate is 4.25%, so there's no need to consider a liquidity trap.

It's 1% now - in theory. It's really near zero. Henke doesn't think this rate is worth mentioning, now that it undermines his argument.

Jon Henke: honest when he can afford to be.

Speaking of intellectual honesty, is there any evidence that any government has ever prevented a recession by taking the advice of economists? Are there even 3 examples?

I know that there are claims that a policy advocated by an economist (especially advocated after the fact) WOULD HAVE been effective had they been tried. I also know that there are claims, again after the fact, that a government policy MADE THINGS WORSE.

And there are really detailed mechanistic explanations of how other policies would have made things better, whereas actual policies made things worse. Lots of them.

My question therefore is, in the interests of intellectual honesty, what evidence is there that governments following policies advocated by economists have ended any recessions?

Good one. Great coverage and perspective. A real smile to read. Hope it gets to Henke.

The RedStaters are getting so dull and slow on the uptake, they've sunk to the level of infraredstaters...

"Intellectually Lazy
Yousafedeh is like a child repeating a term that he heard grown-ups use, but the meaning was completely over his head."-jcricket

Yes, but I like to think they are more nefarious than that. I find they go out of their way to dilute the meaning of words such as "fascist" and terms such as "reality based" so that their mindless followers aren't troubled when "liberals" throw these terms their way.

However, in general, I don't really care for this sort of intentional framing...

Hmm, perhaps this is something the resident ethicist could comment upon.

With respect to the instant topic, I don't think there's any issue. Monetarist arguments ARE a Hooverite argument -- the very argument that was used by Hoover, Mellon, and others and that, by all modern accounts, was largely responsible for turning a large-scale financial panic (something much less unfamiliar in those days than today) into a decade-long worldwide depression. "Neo-Hooverite" is entirely fair and not misleading.

But that said, I disagree STRONGLY with the premise that one shouldn't engage in "intentional framing." For crying out loud, rhetoric is probably THE essential tool in civilized politics (I'm assuming that armed clashes are even less to your taste), and framing -- yes, even before Lakoff -- has always been a powerful tool of rhetoric.

Just as it's unrealistic to the point of goofiness not to prepare or rehearse arguments prior to a courtroom proceeding, or to fail to emphasize the honest points in one's favor and not voluntarily mention those against it in any argument, or for that matter to go to a gunfight armed with a butter-knife, so it's silly not to use rhetorical tools to advance one's honestly held beliefs in politics.

And quite frankly, I'm tired of riding horse-cavalry against mechanized Panzer divisions for the sake of honor and chivalry. We don't have to stoop to the level of state-sponsored terror squads, but we sure as hell need to start driving tanks.

They're neo-Hooverites, their recommendations would make life FAR worse for average Americans, and I strongly suspect they don't care because they're of (or want to be of) the rarefied class that has made out like bandits for the last decade and now are sitting on piles of money and saying, "recession? What recession?" They need to be shut down, and fast. And if that means hiring Harry and Louise to reminisce worriedly about what their parents went through in Hoover's time, thanks to "those bankers and Republicans," then I'll contribute to it.

PS, and no, I am not suggesting that the actual horse-cavalry charges against the Panzers were made subject to a choice for horses and against mechanized cavalry. A mechanized option obviously was not available. I'm merely pointing out the futility of an analogous choice when such an alternative is available.

Monetarist arguments ARE a Hooverite argument -- the very argument that was used by Hoover, Mellon, and others and that, by all modern accounts, was largely responsible for turning a large-scale financial panic (something much less unfamiliar in those days than today) into a decade-long worldwide depression.

Do we have evidence that other policies, when applied at the beginnings of recessions, have done better? What about the possibility that all known government interventions have either made things worse or had no effects at all?

bleh:

"However, in general, I don't really care for this sort of intentional framing...

Hmm, perhaps this is something the resident ethicist could comment upon."

You rang?

I think it's fine as long as it's accurate. When you're characterizing a side you're not on, it's worth thinking twice to make sure it's accurate. In the case of neo-Hooverism, it is.

Plus, sometimes calling people what they choose to call themselves means going along with their deliberately misleading choice of terms. For instance, I do not use "pro-life", at least when I'm not careless, because I do not believe that being pro- or anti-life is actually what separates people who are for or against legalized abortion. Neither side favors killing (e.g.) adult human beings; both sides are generally OK with taking (e.g.) plant or insect life; the difference is not a view about life, but a view about human embryonic and/or fetal life, which is quite different.

I'm fine if Jains want to call themselves pro-life, though.

I stopped listening to the economist in this country two years ago.

Here's why,
1) CNN's ticker have kept the unemployment numbers between 400-460k for two consecutive years. Based on what I've seen and heard from people, that just couldn't be true.

2)Economist kept saying oh the economy is doing great! All I had to do was look at my own cost of living jump, add in the gas prices. I knew it was a lie. All the bill collectors had their hands out for more money, utilities, gasoline, cable, food, everything.

3)The fact that this administration kept using fear tactics to keep our minds off of the true happenings.

Didn't you notice how, Ahmadinejad said after leaving the U.N. "I have no intention of nuclear weapons - IT WILL TAKE 30 YEARS FOR THE ECONOMY TO RECOVER FROM WHAT BUSH DID?

Chavez said, "So Bush needs to take over the banks in order to turn his country into socialism."

No, I am not a fan of either, but, sometimes you can learn more from an enemy, e.g. the so-called scorned woman saying.

Henke is manipulating context, but as far as intellectual crimes go he could do a lot worse ;)

The entire administration has mislead this country.
All the money and businesses are going to Dubai:

General Electric
Citibank
Siemens
Halliburton
Dell
Microsoft
Marriott.......

As well as India

That's right, the taxpayers have taken big hits to fund their moving costs to build - look at your retirement and investment portfolio and see the losses. Where's the SEC? Chris Cox (R) has been absent.

What happen to the progressive tax system - as an Individual American citizen, you are taxes here in the U.S. no matter where you live - Dubai, India, China, Europe.

Yes, businesses are not considered a person, however, they are still taking taxpayer dollars and making profits here.

Steve - Just an excellent job of fisking (I think that's the term). Put that in the playbook.

Slightly embarrassing. I meant Hilzoy.

One of the reasons that free-market fanatics were allowed to get us into this mess is that some otherwise liberal economists such as Krugman agreed that the Maestros of the Fed had the power and the knowledge to rescue us in case anything went wrong. To a considerable extent Yousefzadeh is right that Krugman has been on the conservative side in respect to the role of the Fed (although it would be false to claim that Krugman favors monetary over fiscal policy at this point - after monetary policy has already demonstrably failed).

The point is: beware of those, liberals or not, who tell you that Randian bankers have things under control and will look out for the best interests of the country.

Do we have evidence that other policies, when applied at the beginnings of recessions, have done better?

Well, we have the spending program at the outset of the 1937 recession, which turned out to be much milder and shorter than the 1929 recession to which monetary responses and protectionism were the initial response, and spending programs were initiated only after those had failed.

OTOH, its really hard to tell because we have small sample sizes, recessions with a variety of different initial conditions, and lots of details in difference in the responses, so isolating any particular effect is difficult; its hard to make claims with much empirical support that are narrowly specific to recession responses, rather than that have support as broader economic principles which can then be applied to recessions.

Conservatives are great at pulling quotes out of the past or present (or the future, if they could)that justify their arguments/policies/positions.

bleh, you are right in every comment here today.