09 Feb 2015

What’s Good for Dave Ramsey Is Good for Charles Krauthammer

Gene Callahan 37 Comments

Gene Callahan has consistently opposed my view that it is a perfectly fine rhetorical move to exaggerate the numbers in an opponent’s position, to see how compelling the stated principle really is. A few years ago Gene complained when libertarians did this in the minimum wage debate, and just recently he said that my rhetorical move against Charles Krauthammer’s call for a $1/gallon tax on gasoline also left him unsatisfied.

This always surprised me, since Gene is a voracious reader of philosophical work and arguably the only thing philosophers really do for us is test the validity of various arguments. In other words, reading various philosophers hardly ever makes me think I’ve found the answer, but the exercise does help me think through the flaws in the various answers that others have put forth.

Anyway, I decided in our recent exchange just to wait, and watch Gene use the same rhetorical trick in his own work. I didn’t have to wait long. Last week he wrote a post complaining about Dave Ramsey:

Here we find “financial guru” David Ramsey telling his guru-ees: “T]he 30 year mortgage robs your future. […] It simply enabled borrowers to buy more house than they could afford by spreading the payments out over a longer term. On top of that, those homeowners paid tens—even hundreds of thousands of dollars more in interest.”

Sigh. First of all, why is this “more house than they can afford”?! They can afford, it, since they spread the payments out! And if Ramsey’s argument works, why doesn’t it work equally well against his preferred 15-year mortgage?! Don’t all mortgages enable borrowers to buy “more house than they could afford” if they had to pay cash?

Yes, in some cases, a shorter mortgage might be better. But Ramsey shows no signs of acknowledging the trade-offs involved. 

Gene’s critique of Ramsey is so analogous to mine of Krauthammer that it’s almost eerie. Now suppose a fan of Dave Ramsey found Gene’s post, and wrote the following:

“Callahan you idiot! I suppose if your doctor said, ‘Gene, I don’t think you should be eating 6 square meals a day, that wouldn’t be healthy’ then you’d come back and say, “Ha ha doc, if that’s a good argument, then would it be bad for me to eat 3 square meals a day!”

Would such a flippant response blow up Gene’s critique of Ramsey? No, of course it wouldn’t. What Gene did was show that the specific argument Ramsey used against 30-year mortgages couldn’t be a good one, because the same argument would show that 15-year mortgages were bad, and Ramsey himself is OK with his listeners taking out 15-year mortgages.

I’m going to stop now. In closing, all I would say is, I hope Gene (and Josiah Neeley et al.) don’t forever remove this wonderful rhetorical device from their toolbox, for fear of hypocrisy. Just admit you were wrong when you criticized me for using it.

37 Responses to “What’s Good for Dave Ramsey Is Good for Charles Krauthammer”

  1. Josiah says:

    I was always clear that I didn’t oppose the “why not 100?” type response in general, just the particular application you were making of it. So naner-naner.

    • Tel says:

      In Japan you can get a 100-year mortgage, but I don’t think they are popular. 40-year mortgages seem more common from what I’ve been able to find.

      Mind you, the whole thing is missing the important question of how much penalty you are hit with if you pay it off earlier. Most modern mortgages have at least some flexibility, because fundamentally the future is an unknown… especially the economic future of the world 100 years from now.

  2. Daniel Kuehn says:

    I don’t think it’s irrelevant at all that you projected way out of sample whereas Gene is staying very safely within sample. Buying houses for cash, a 15 year mortgage, and a 30 year mortgage are all very standard options. Indeed, you can really think of any mortgage as actually being a hybrid in the sense that you’re both putting cash down and taking out some sort of mortgage.

    With Krauthammer you were presenting an alternative that didn’t even resemble what he was talking about.

    FWIW to other readers (and Bob too if he forgets), I thought Bob’s response to Krauthammer could have been good for useful clarification of details that are left unstated because they are commonly understood, but isn’t really a strong counter-argument per se and may even risk making it look like you have no strong counter-arguments.

    • Grane Peer says:

      Krauthammer proposed a solution to a problem he invented. There was no sample, some such amount either achieves his goal or it doesn’t. $10/gal or $1/gal is more than reasonable when the first number was pulled from the darkest region of the human body. Bob’s error was entertaining an idiotic argument on its own grounds. Charles is welcome to buy all the worlds oil and sell it at whatever price he chooses. Gene made the same general argument as Bob, the relevant difference you point out is that one already exists thus there are specific options and the other is just a proposal so the options are whatever they are said to be.

    • Reece says:

      “Within sample” doesn’t change the logical power of the argument. Bob’s point was that Krauthammer was not looking at the costs. That was the point of using the rhetorical device.

      Of course everyone is aware that a massive tax (or whatever the policy is) would be bad. That’s why the argument is over where the cut off line is at. If you only mention the benefits to a policy, your argument is useless on its own for discovering where this line is at. In other words, the argument is not useful in determining whether or not this policy is a good idea.

      “With Krauthammer you were presenting an alternative that didn’t even resemble what he was talking about… I thought Bob’s response to Krauthammer could have been good for useful clarification of details”

      How would Bob’s argument be useful for clarification of details if it didn’t even resemble what he was talking about? Saying it doesn’t resemble what Krauthammer was talking about is not only not in sample, it’s wrong.

    • Brent says:

      Ummm… Bob is just saying the logic is bad – degree-wise, he obviously would agree $1 / gal (“in sample”) is less stupid than $10 / gal.

    • Silas Barta says:

      But that’s sort of the point, Daniel_Kuehn: what is the sample? Or rather, what is the model? How is the person weighing the costs and benefits that get them to conclude that X is bad (enough), at 30 but not 15?

      We can have reasonable debates about whether X has downside Z, and their relative significance. We can’t ground a reasonable debate in “X is infinitely bad”, which is the implicit model used in some of these arguments!

  3. Daniel Kuehn says:

    Philosophy per se is only valuable here if you think of an op-ed as being some type of formal logical proof. If that’s what an op-ed is then by all means attack it with these logical tools. Extreme values like this are nice for attacking problems where absolutely every claim and argument is formally laid out so the implications can be explored.

    But that’s not what we’re dealing with in situations like this. We’re dealing with a situation where a lot of the components of an argument are understood, implicit, or even simply omitted for the sake of brevity. It’s a conversation, not a proof. Treating it like a proof might advance the conversation (or it might backfire and make you look like you’re not understanding the conversation), but even if it did advance the conversation it’s not really the proper sphere to whip out logical principles in the sense of philosophical logic.

    • Grane Peer says:

      I get it Daniel, who needs logical consistency when rhetorical devices are so much more effective at convincing common clots of the efficacy of bad ideas.

      • Daniel Kuehn says:

        Grane – I think you’re misunderstanding.

        The point is not that anyone should be inconsistent. The point is that most communication and argument is not made with formal logic. You haven’t demonstrated anything by applying logical rules to such arguments or communications. People can have very solid grounds for being persuaded by something other than a complete statement of formal logic.

        And this doesn’t even delve into whether it makes sense to talk about “complete formal logic” in the first place – I’m taking that as a given which of course many suggest is inappropriate.

        • Grane Peer says:

          I think it safe to say we all have strong beliefs in wrong things but I am not willing to say my imbecilities have any strong grounding whatever. I don’t think an op-ed piece need be drawn out into a formal logic but that is not to say that we can’t address certain claims in an op-ed to test their validity. Based on some other comments you have made it sounds to me that you think bosh should be countered with flimshaw because the people you want to reach aren’t capable of understanding the truth. I am probably misunderstanding

          • Daniel Kuehn says:

            And no one is arguing we shouldn’t assess the validity of op-ed arguments

    • Major.Freedom says:

      Daniel:

      “Philosophy per se is only valuable here if you think of an op-ed as being some type of formal logical proof.”

      You know, you have a serious problem with a lack of self-reflection. Your responses to Bob’s post here is using philosophy, which suggests you find philosophy valuable as a response, and yet Bob’s post is not some sort of encyclopedic formal logic proof either.

      Perhaps take your own advice?

      • Daniel Kuehn says:

        MF – you seem to think I argued that nobody can respond to anyone ever unless it’s a formal proof.

        I haven’t said this.

        And to repeat, I’ve always said that this response from Bob to Krauthammer might keep the conversation going in the right direction. That would be good. I’m not entirely sure it would have that effect, but it might. What he definitely hasn’t done is used logic to identify a flaw in the argument.

        • Major.Freedom says:

          Daniel,

          “you seem to think I argued that nobody can respond to anyone ever unless it’s a formal proof.”

          No, I am saying and thinking what I already said: that if you are going to criticize Bob for believing philosophy is useful tool in responding to a post that is not itself a formal logical proof, then that same exact criticism applies to that very criticism of yours. You used philosophy to critique a post that is not itself a formal logical proof!

  4. Gene Callahan says:

    “Anyway, I decided in our recent exchange just to wait, and watch Gene use the same rhetorical trick…”

    I thought I was being stalked!

  5. Innocent says:

    I think the issue is one of semantics. Ramsey is attempting to help people build wealth and remove debt. In this case a 30 year loan does not allow this to happen as quickly as a 15 year loan does. Since he defines ‘More house than you can afford’ as it fitting into the 15 year model then he is correct.

    It is not that you cannot afford a home at payments for a 30 year mortgage, in fact the payments may well be lower than the 15 year loan. But if the end goal is to have a paid off home in 15 years then you cannot afford a 30 year mortgage.

    Ramsey uses a term ‘more home than you can afford’ in order to create a visceral reaction to motivate people to ‘do the right thing’ as defined by his Credos.

    As for the irony. Yes it is funny, however I think his argument and your are still different. Again Ramsey is using a device ‘rhetoric’ in order to help others meet an objective. I disagree with Charles Krauthammer and do not see his as rhetoric based but rather as lacking economic clarity.

    Your argument against the increase of gas tax was not based on a misunderstanding of the base argument being used, whereas Gene Callahan has taken Ramsey’s words and misunderstood the meaning going only at face value, which he interprets incorrectly. Ramsey, who is against debt while still recognizing it’s purpose in today’s economy when it comes to home purchases, uses a ‘meaning’ that Gene takes literally rather than illustratively.

    • Gene Callahan says:

      “Since he defines ‘More house than you can afford’ as it fitting into the 15 year model”

      If he “defines” it that way, he probably should have let us know that, huh? But then the statement would be true simply by definition, and so pointless to make! You are making Ramsey out to look worse than even I did!

  6. Transformer says:

    “Gene Callahan has consistently opposed my view that it is a perfectly fine rhetorical move to exaggerate the numbers in an opponent’s position, to see how compelling the stated principle really is.”

    Gene is not really exaggerating the numbers when he compares Ramsey’s real views on 30 v 15 year mortgages, so is not actually using the rhetorical move that he is opposed to.

    (Bob, by contrast, does exaggerate Krauthammer’s views when he compares his real views on the $1 tax to a made up view on the $100 tax.)

    • Bob Murphy says:

      What in the world are you talking about Transformer? Krauthammer’s “real views” are that (a) he supports a $1 increase in the gas tax and (b) he opposes a $10 increase (at least I think he does).

      • Transformer says:

        What I am talking is about this:

        You say Gene opposes your view that “it is a perfectly fine rhetorical move to exaggerate the numbers in an opponent’s position, to see how compelling the stated principle really is”, and you then claim Gene has used this very same rhetorical devise himself in his recent post.

        But I don’t see where Gene “has exaggerate[d] the numbers in his opponent’s position in that post?. Can you explain where he does that?

        (Your dispute with Krauthammer is irrelevant here, I just used that as an example of said rhetorical device in action.)

        • Major.Freedom says:

          Transformer,

          Why is $100 presented against $1 an “exaggeration”? What would NOT have been an exaggeration? The answer you give will be subjective.

          Callahan was not criticizing Bob for exaggerating the number. He was criticizing him on formal logic grounds.

          If Bob had instead said $30 an hour instead of $100, then Bob’s point would still stand, Callahan would likely have still criticized it on logical grounds, but at the end of the day, the point Bob is making is that the reasons given for why minimum wage is a good idea do not conclusively rule out $100 or any other number. Why YOU might think $100 is ” too high” and an “exaggeration” that distinguishes it from Callahan’s 30 to 15 mortgage logic, Callahan did the very thing that Bib did. He took an argument and noticed that the reasons given do not conclusively rule out the same thing applying to a different number.

          It has nothing to do with the quantitative sizes of the analogies chosen.

          • Transformer says:

            It was Bob who defined the rhetorical move under discussion as involving ‘exaggerating the numbers’. It is a reasonable question to ask Bob where he thinks Gene has actually exaggerated the numbers if he think Gene is making use of this rhetorical move, isn’t it ?

            • Major.Freedom says:

              Yes, exaggerating is how Bob defines Gene’s criticism, but Bob was using $100 as a means to test a particular argument in favor of the minimum wage. The point is not the size of the exaggeration, but using it at all.

              My point is that if you are going to say that Bob can’t use $100 but Gene can use 15, on the grounds that Bob is exaggerating while Gene is not, then even if Bob calls what he did an exaggeration, it doesn’t mean that if Bob can’t use $100 that Gene can use 15. If Bob can’t use $100, then it doesn’t matter if you think he can’t do so because it is an exaggeration, or even if Bob defines it as such. We have to take the point Bob is making, which is that when presented with a particular argument that does not rule out exaggerating above some stated cap or ceiling, then the rhetorical device as a response that you might define as exaggeration, is in precisely the same class of argument as Gene’s 15 year rhetorical device that you may or may not define as exaggeration. Gene responded to an argument that does not rule out exaggerating by 15 years. So he picked that. Do you know of any 100 year mortgages? I know of $100 an hour jobs.

              • Harold says:

                I think the point here is that Ramsey said 30 years, and Ramsey also said 15 years in his original piece. Gene did not then extrapolate beyond any numbers that Ramsey had used. In the Krauthammer case, Krauthammer said $1, Bob extrapolated that to $10, a number that Krauthammer had never used. It is not therefore correct to say Gene used the same rhetorical device, since he did not exaggerate any numbers used in the original. Whether it could still be so analogous it is eerie I will leave to others to judge.

            • Reece says:

              Gene admitted that: “Yes, in some cases, a shorter mortgage might be better.”

              If Ramsey’s argument of negative consequences for the worse value works, then Gene is saying it should also work for the better value, because the argument does not depend on the value. Gene used this example because he knew Ramsey would not think it would work for the better value.

              Similarly, if Krauthammer’s argument of positive consequences for the better value works, then Bob is saying it should also work for the worse value, because the argument does not depend on the value. Bob used this example because he knew Krauthammer would not think it would work for the worse value.

              Gene exaggerated one way (to a better value), Bob exaggerated the other way (to a worse value), but the arguments worked off the exact same logic.

              As Bob said, “Gene’s allowed to use the argument, and I’m not.”

  7. Bob Murphy says:

    I guess I shouldn’t be surprised: Since the very thing under dispute here is whether Krauthammer should be bound to follow principles in his arguments, there’s no reason you guys should be consistent in holding Gene and me to the same principle. Gene’s allowed to use the argument, and I’m not. You’re actually being consistent in your rejection of thinking principles matter in rhetoric. Well done!

    • David R. Henderson says:

      Notice, though, Bob, that, in both of his comments above, Gene Callahan didn’t disagree with your point. I think he probably has the same problem most people have: admitting that he’s wrong.

      • Bob Murphy says:

        David, I wasn’t including Gene in my exasperated and sarcastic comment there. I noted that Gene didn’t address the main point of this post. I will see if he posts further on it…

    • Josiah says:

      Bob,

      If it makes you feel any better, I still think you were right in the Great Debt Burden Debate.

  8. George says:

    One reason to not us excessive numbers is that the argument doesn’t work against most people, who will just say “but I wasn’t proposing a $100 minimum wage — why are you so greedy?”. Another reason is that it assumes a linear response when the opponents may not be assuming a simple linear model. Just because they acknowledge $100 wouldn’t work doesn’t mean they’re conceding your point.

    • skylien says:

      “Just because they acknowledge $100 wouldn’t work doesn’t mean they’re conceding your point.” Then they have to spell it out, why say at 20$ minimum wage suddenly effects are negative on net! They just never do, why is that I ask you?

    • Bob Murphy says:

      George wrote, “One reason to not us excessive numbers is that the argument doesn’t work against most people, who will just say “but I wasn’t proposing a $100 minimum wage — why are you so greedy?”.”

      OK, and by the same token, Dave Ramsey can say to Gene, “Huh? I’m OK with a 15-year mortgage. Why are you putting words in my mouth? I’m saying a 30-year mortgage is bad because it makes the borrower buy more house than he can afford.”

      Gene would rightly be unsatisfied with such a response.

  9. skylien says:

    If I read discussions about such basic tools of arguing, and see that not even here it is possible to agree, then it becomes painfully obvious why it is very often so frustrating discussing economics…

  10. Jeff says:

    All this discussion of the rhetorical device of exaggerating the claim to see if it holds water reminds me of a classic joke.

    At a fancy dinner party, there is a young woman who is raving about her favorite actor: how handsome he is, how funny he seems, and so forth. So the fellow sitting next to her says to her:

    “You seem quite smitten by this actor. Tell me, would you sleep with him for five million dollars?”

    The young woman thinks for a few minutes, then says “yes, I believe I would.”

    Then the fellow responds “well then would you sleep with him for five dollars?”

    The young woman exclaims “no! What kind of girl do you take me for?”

    The fellow responds “we’ve already established that, we’re just quibbling about the price.”

  11. Gamble says:

    Apparently none of you have played with an amortization calculator. The total interest paid on a 30 year is substantially more than the total interest paid on a 15 year, rates being the same. Furthermore a 30 year pushes out your equity, so if you move before pay off the loan, the 15 year will always put more equity in your pocket. Over the course of 30 years you will do way more maintenance than in 15, so the chance of being upside is greater. Finally, the biggest difference is with a 15, you begin investing your mortgage payment year 16 and get a ROI of 6-8%, not so with a 30. With a 30, you are paying 6-8% rather than receiving.

    Dave knows what up.

    30 and 40 year loans do push up the cost of houses just as long term auto loans and long term school loans.

    Dave knows whats up. Take his course and put his advice into practice, you will see.

Leave a Reply to Bob Murphy

Cancel Reply