08
Feb
2014
Potpourri
==> Josiah Neeley thinks today’s blogging Keynesians are too eager to raise taxes, even though that’s not what their theory calls for.
==> Peter Schiff talks about his Daily Show interview.
==> Doug French steals some Jim Croce lyrics (but he doesn’t believe in IP) and says, “Don’t fight the Fed.”
==> OK so a lot of libertarian types loved this insider account of the TSA. Yet as far as I can tell, this guy offered no more evidence than Kristen Meghan did about the Air Force. The government has officially denied both of their stories (not necessarily in reference to their names, but their allegations). Discuss.
Bob, I haven’t read the Politico piece, but I assume that the difference is simply that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Chemtrails and fluoridation conspiracies, as Kristin Meghan alleges, are significantly more implausible than TSA malfeasance.
That and the absence of obvious twaddle about contrails not spreading. Kristen Meghan made a lot of clearly false statements, duly debunked.
More over, how can economists who believe that an economy that has billions of daily inputs, if not more is uncontrollable and should be free believe that some one can control the environment or climate? Surely there are more inputs at play in weather control than in the market.
There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophies.
JimS
Paris is fed by a giant government conspiracy.
JimS wrote:
More over, how can economists who believe that an economy that has billions of daily inputs, if not more is uncontrollable and should be free believe that some one can control the environment or climate?
Right JimS, so we see government officials intervening in every other area of our lives; they think they can boost how much low-skilled workers earn without causing unemployment, they think they can stop people from using heroin, they think they can be better parents, they think they can set interest rates, and they think they can provide peace and democracy in Afghanistan.
Yet when a woman claims that the Air Force is dumping stuff in the air because these same government officials want to influence the weather, the very idea is so palpably absurd that libertarians deem her a lunatic.
Mr Jones, a Mr B has left a large crow for you. How would you like it cooked?
>” the very idea is so palpably absurd that libertarians deem her a lunatic.”
Bob, you’re acting as if people outright dismissing chemtrails on the mere concept of it. No, people are dismissing it on based on the completely terrible evidence and factually incorrect analysis they have provided.
Plus the theory as articulated requires not just inneffectual snickering but a well oiled smoothly run conspiracy of thousands spread over decades and continents.
An large organization has wasteful stupid stuff going on, but my fortune 10 company is not secretly poisoning people with secret weapons.
10 http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/natural-disasters/9-utterly-ridiculous-conspiracy-theories?click=pp#slide-1
Krugman’s response to Neeley would look something like that: we’re in a liquidity trap, and tax cuts will not lead to higher private spending. Further, during a demand-side recession, crowding out is not a problem when there are idle resources.
I think the difference is that there’s lots of anecdotal evidence of the TSA acting like A-holes, prancing around with security theatre, lording it over the poor schmucks who have to travel, and generally being useless and obnoxious. There seems to be an element of human nature that needs to bully others, we have all seen it happen… which is why it isn’t so difficult to believe that it happens inside security agencies as well.
Bob has invented a new form of argument, Murphy’s Ratchet. I allege there is a government employee behaving like an ass and lying about it.
Yet as far as anyone can tell, I have offered no more evidence than Kristen Meghan did about the Air Force. You believe me though. Thus you really ought to believe her. QED.
Is that what he was doing? I got the impression that he finally came around to accepting that the chemtrail stuff was nutty, and was just expressing a healthy amount of skepticism towards the TSA story. If he’s really saying libertarians should accept the TSA story because it has no evidence just like Meghan’s story, then I’ve completely misjudged Murphy.
I don’t think the comparison works for the reasons Tel and Srinivasan gave though.
You guys left out my almost fanatical hatred of Krugman. Surely that is partially at work here as well.
Are you being ironic?
Bob does this particular thing. He takes claims of conspiracies, makes various where there’s smoke there’s fire comments, doesn’t necessarily conclude that the actual accusation is true but takes it as evidence of government plots and malfeasance more generally, using even contradictory claims and accusations and theories to do this. It is confirmation bias run wild.
That the government lies, murders, cheats, misleads, steals, spies, and in general engage in “conspiracies”, is not a hypothetical theory, in need of confirmation from future, never before seen evidence.
The government uses force, period. That is all it does. And since it uses force in an initiating manner in order for it to even exist, it is both a theoretical and empirical fact that the government engages in the very behavior that you are claiming Murphy is taking for granted in a confirmation bias manner.
We already have the evidence that you are implying Murphy is ignoring.
I have a form of argument for you. The Ken B fallacy of government.
Keep defending murderers and thieves Ken B, and keep pretending that you are a non-biased statist ideologue.
When there is no competition, no consumer feedback, no profit motive and revenue is derived from gunpoint, there is no limit to the hideous and or pointless activities that transpire.
“The government uses force, period. That is all it does.” This is a useless claim, as it does do things not usually considered to be violence. It seems reminiscent of original sin.
“The government has officially denied both of their stories”
I’m not quite sure how it’s something the government can even deny. If the room had no cameras and it was done away from the bosses, how would they know if they were laughing? Workers laugh at stuff in private all the time And as far as I’m aware, the government hasn’t denied anything related to Meghan’s chemtrail stories.
The TSA guy wasn’t just claiming that people laughed at naked scanner images. He said that the entire apparatus did virtually nothing to actually promote security. So, I would expect many of you to say, “What?! The government spending hundreds of millions of dollars on this body scanning program that all the TSA insiders know doesn’t promote security? Don’t you think the media would report it if those scanners actually emitted harmful radiation? It’s just a giant coverup with millions of government employees who are all in on it? And what’s the motivation? Just a bunch of preverts at the center of this vast conspiracy? If this TSA guy wanted to prove his case, he should’ve actually gotten some evidence. And note how he’s using this story to launch his writing career. How convenient.”
The government is happy to spend millions promoting obedience, but security theatre is one of many ways to do that.
http://cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/matt-vespa/sixth-grader-suspended-turning-non-firing-toy-gun-he-found
Teachers behaving like idiots is another way to promote obedience, although you have to ask yourself whether they can even get that right. The carpet is getting frayed around the corners a bit.
Even the phrase security theatre now sounds like pandering to the conventional wisdom. I used it last time I stood in line and everyone knew what I meant and noone seemed to disagree.
Tel, look at the link I posted on the child labor thread. A case in point for your thesis, alas.
Not many people understand that the purpose of outlawing amateur porn is to protect the income of the professional industry. Once you recognize this as just another government assisted rent seeking cartel it makes a lot more sense.
I mean think about it, they are doing work that any idiot can do, so the marginal value should drop to something near zero. That’s why government needs to step in and throttle supply.
I think its more a product of hysteria and increasing puritanism. But there could well be lobbyists leveraging that .
“>“What?! The government spending hundreds of millions of dollars on this body scanning program that all the TSA insiders know doesn’t promote security? ”
As far as I can tell the, the guy didn’t reveal anything particularly new we should be skeptical about.
>”Don’t you think the media would report it if those scanners actually emitted harmful radiation?”
He said nothing about knowing that the scanners emitted harmful levels of radiation. And the media has infact reported on the radiation issue.
“And what’s the motivation? Just a bunch of preverts at the center of this vast conspiracy?”
He gave his view from working at the bottom. He didn’t suggest any type of motivation. He wasn’t working in a high enough position know what the motivation is.
> “If this TSA guy wanted to prove his case, he should’ve actually gotten some evidence.
Evidence to for what? He hasn’t revealed anything new. He just gave some personal anecdotes.
You still think Bob has come around?
Murphy, trust government and give them the benefit of the doubt, and Ken B will suddenly become a habitual defender of your abstract logic and reasoning skills.
uh, I think you’re right.
Even if these stories about the TSA and Air Force are untrue, we know for certain that they are taking extorted funds and/or using aggressive violence to establish authority. Libertarians can still rejoice.
Last one and then I have to walk away: Ken B. and DesolationJones, you are acting as if I merely claimed, “I don’t see why so many libertarians *believe* this TSA guy.” That’s not what I wrote. I wrote that a lot of them LOVE this guy’s piece.
If I write a blog post, “I saw firsthand a dog chasing a cat,” I don’t think a lot of libertarians would be sharing it on Facebook.
I’m not sure I get the point here. Is it simply that you’re expecting that Murphy’s ratchet should appeal to libertarians, that preaching should most appeal to the choir, and that you’re not really trying to convince the rest of us? Because this comment makes it sound like you meant “hey you guys really love the one piece shouldn’t you at least not dislike the other?”
This is 1 of the most timely videos I have watched in a long time. I am really starting to like Jeff Deist!
Hopefully lKeynes watches this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HBIkj6UdlQg
Schiff is a mess. He’s all over youtube showing a callous attitude towards the poor and elderly. His attitude is “tough luck, it’s not the govt’s job to help them.” He even expressed that sentiment during the Daily Show interview when he said “he believed in the founding principles” The founders owned slaves so of course they would not support a minimum wage. They supported working for free and selling humans like cattle.
He does not know anything about the minimum wage. He was merely parroting a oversimplified “law” which says when price increases, demand falls. He did not even mention elasticity of demand which is the issue when discussing whether raising the minimum wage will increase unemployment. Fact is demand for low wage workers is inelastic. Raising the wage 40% since 2006 has not killed minimum wage jobs.
His claim that most minimum wage workers are kids, is simply wrong. The latest numbers from the labor department are for 2012. There were 1.566 million minimum wage workers. 704,000 are over 25. 484,000 are 16 to 19. So 30% are kids. In 2006, there were 409,000 minimum wage workers and 165,000 were kids. The number of kids working the minimum wage has tripled while the minimum wage has increased 40% from $5.15 to $7.40. Of course Schiff would dismiss these numbers are manipulated and bogus. He has no problem telling lies about others but when the daily show makes him look like a fool he is going to whine and say he was treated unfairly. He’s a joke.
Minimum wage is stupid so is welfare so are taxes so is fiat dollar that holds NO value over time.
If people were allowed to keep a fraction of what they earned, they would not need all of this intervention.
The private sector could and would use savings, insurance and charity to fill all voids. Government gives a less than pathetic effort and is an insult to my intelligence…
Talk to Bob. He used to think Samantha was the Bee’s knees.
Good one Ken, sorry Bob, Ken was clever:)
joe,
Don’t forget that people with disabilities are exempt from the minimum wage. What a disgrace, I am sure it was Schiff lobbying for this exemption so that he can enslave them in his firm. They should obviously end this exemption. People with disabilities have the SAME right to a living wage as well! I mean they should generally make an amendment to the constitution which would entitle every living being to a living wage (My definition of a living wage is that you should be able to afford at least one bottle of Moet & Chandon Imperial Brut Impérial Nebuchadnezar champagne a day)!
Hey skylien,
What r u saying, people would not hire disabled if they had to pay minimum wage and the law affirms this….
I thought the “Moet & Chandon Imperial Brut Impérial Nebuchadnezar champagne” would indicate sarcasm crystal clear.
😉
Well supposedly an early sign of Alzheimer’s is inability to discern sarcasm, ut oh.
You looking to adopt?
HI Ken,
Did you get a chance to watch this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HBIkj6UdlQg