BBO Discussion Forums: Hillary and the ordinary people - BBO Discussion Forums

This is interesting from several perspectives. The economics, certainly. But also the trouble that arises when we start calling people names. :Charlatans and Cranks" was in the first edition of his text but was removed for the second edition by demand ot the publisher, and Mankiw now agrees. And Bernstein writes "Economists sometimes serve vested interests, and will change their views accordingly. The best example is also one of the best economists, Greg Mankiw.".. If you go to the link and read the follow-up conversation between the two, Bernstein expresses surprise that Manikw took offense by this"Having read your website reacting to my TPM post, you and your readers got me all wrong. I certainly didn't accuse you of hypocrisy and meant no offense at all. In fact, I called you one of the best economists, and have always enjoyed your work, " Uh huh.Well, I can see why Manikw did not take Bernstein's words as a compliment. Being called a really talented prostitute is, at best, a mixed compliment.

Another trick is to use arguments ad hominem, or ex concessis* When your opponent makes a proposition, you must try to see whether it is not in some way — if needs be, only apparently — inconsistent with some other proposition which he has made or admitted, or with the principles of a school or sect which he has commended and approved, or with the actions of those who support the sect, or else of those who give it only an apparent and spurious support, or with his own actions or want of action. For example, should he defend suicide, you may at once exclaim, “Why don’t you hang yourself?” Should he maintain that Berlin is an unpleasant place to live in, you may say, “Why don’t you leave by the first train?” Some such claptrap is always possible.

* The truth from which I draw my proof may he either (1) of an objective and universally valid character; in that case my proof is veracious, secundum veritatem; and it is such proof alone that has any genuine validity. Or (2) it may be valid only for the person to whom I wish to prove my proposition, and with whom I am disputing. He has, that is to say, either taken up some position once for all as a prejudice, or hastily admitted it in the course of the dispute; and on this I ground my proof. In that case, it is a proof valid only for this particular man, ad hominem. I compel my opponent to grant my proposition, but I fail to establish it as a truth of universal validity. My proof avails for my opponent alone, but for no one else. For example, if my opponent is a devotee of Kant’s, and I ground my proof on some utterance of that philosopher, it is a proof which in itself is only ad hominem. If he is a Mohammedan, I may prove my point by reference to a passage in the Koran, and that is sufficient for him; but here it is only a proof ad hominem.

A last trick is to become personal, insulting, rude, as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand, and that you are going to come off worst. It consists in passing from the subject of dispute, as from a lost game, to the disputant himself, and in some way attacking his person. It may be called the argumentum ad personam, to distinguish it from the argumentum ad hominem, which passes from the objective discussion of the subject pure and simple to the statements or admissions which your opponent has made in regard to it. But in becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack to his person, by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. It is an appeal from the virtues of the intellect to the virtues of the body, or to mere animalism. This is a very popular trick, because every one is able to carry it into effect; and so it is of frequent application. Now the question is, What counter-trick avails for the other party? for if he has recourse to the same rule, there will be blows, or a duel, or an action for slander.

It would be a great mistake to suppose that it is sufficient not to become personal yourself. For by showing a man quite quietly that he is wrong, and that what he says and thinks is incorrect — a process which occurs in every dialectical victory — you embitter him more than if you used some rude or insulting expression. Why is this? Because, as Hobbes observes,* all mental pleasure consists in being able to compare oneself with others to one’s own advantage. Nothing is of greater moment to a man than the gratification of his vanity, and no wound is more painful than that which is inflicted on it. Hence such phrases as “Death before dishonour,” and so on. The gratification of vanity arises mainly by comparison of oneself with others, in every respect, but chiefly in respect of one’s intellectual powers; and so the most effective and the strongest gratification of it is to be found in controversy. Hence the embitterment of defeat, apart from any question of injustice; and hence recourse to that last weapon, that last trick, which you cannot evade by mere politeness. A cool demeanour may, however, help you here, if, as soon as your opponent becomes personal, you quietly reply, “That has no bearing on the point in dispute,” and immediately bring the conversation back to it, and continue to show him that he is wrong, without taking any notice of his insults. Say, as Themistocles said to Eurybiades — Strike, but hear me. But such demeanour is not given to every one.

* Elementa philosophica de Cive.

As a sharpening of wits, controversy is often, indeed, of mutual advantage, in order to correct one’s thoughts and awaken new views. But in learning and in mental power both disputants must be tolerably equal. If one of them lacks learning, he will fail to understand the other, as he is not on the same level with his antagonist. If he lacks mental power, he will be embittered, and led into dishonest tricks, and end by being rude.

The only safe rule, therefore, is that which Aristotle mentions in the last chapter of his Topica: not to dispute with the first person you meet, but only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to cherish truth, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong, should truth lie with him. From this it follows that scarcely one man in a hundred is worth your disputing with him. You may let the remainder say what they please, for every one is at liberty to be a fool — desipere est jus gentium. Remember what Voltaire says: La paix vaut encore mieux que la vérité**. Remember also an Arabian proverb which tells us that on the tree of silence there hangs its fruit, which is peace.

I've actually talked with people who think that tax cuts more than pay for themselves in increased tax revenue. Wouldn't call them charlatans or cranks though, but folks who've been fooled by charlatans and cranks and lack the ability to discern that.

It’s easy to get depressed about the state of American democracy. But we don’t need to be. The solutions are not overly complicated: Give government the resources it needs to think for itself and to develop policy without having to depend almost entirely on outside lobbyists. Make sure all sides have the resources to make their best case. The politics of checks and balances can do the rest.

Come on, Adam, you are too smart for cheap arguments like this. Your argument boils down to "the housing crash happened during the Bush administration". The causes for the housing crash are complicated, and supply side economics are pretty far down the list, if they should be listed at all.

I can't go outside and walk down the street naked. I don't actually want to, but anyway I can't.

That's what a society does, it imposes requirements on its members.

The folks who founded this country attempted to go another way. They suggested that "…to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…"

In practice, government is force. It imposes not by the consent of the governed, but by the threat of force.

Someone upthread said that filing tax returns in the US is voluntary. Really? What do you think would happen if you didn't. Okay, the IRS doesn't currently have to manpower to go after the little guy. What about Bill Gates? Suppose he just doesn't file, and when they go after him (and they will) he says "but filing is voluntary, I don't have to do it"? What do you think would happen?

Oddly, I also was thinking of choosing this very same line from the Declaration. The practical fact is that "the consent of the governed" does not and cannot mean the "unanimous consent of the governed". We would never do anything. I realize you would like the gov to do a lot less, but I doubt that this extends to not wanting the government to do a thing unless it first gets absolutely unanimous consent. So "consent of the governed" means "via some sort of democratic process where everyone gets a vote", with the power of the majority having at least some constraint. We could think a bit about the philosophy behind these constraints. The "tyranny of the majority" is often mentioned, but now the problem may really be more "the tyranny of the super rich". Rich people can be good people just as a voting majority can be made up of mostly good people, but I think it is in keeping with our traditions to rein in power when it becomes excessive. Busting up trusts was once important, regulating super pacs can be important. If we approach this with the philosophy of "In order to form a more perfect union" we have a shot at getting it right.

As to tax being voluntary. You hear that sometimes (I don't recall it up thread but could be). It's not voluntary, just like it's not theft. Anyway, whether voluntary or theft, it isn't going away.

Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. So long Holly.

Interestingly, L. Neil Smith based an entire alternate world series on the premise that the word "unanimous" did appear in the final version of the declaration. That resulted in a world in which the Whiskey Rebellion succeeded, Washington was executed for treason, and the Articles of Confederation (suitably amended over time) still govern two hundred years later (the first book, The Probability Broach, was set in 1987). Yes, it's fiction. Still a fun read, imo.

One scene I especially liked: the main character, from something like, and yet unlike, our version of reality, is getting a tour of the capital, a small town in Kansas that is deserted unless the Continental Congress is in session — and that only occurs when a major crisis is imminent. He's shown a corridor with framed pictures of all the Presidents of the Continental Congress. At one point the guide stops, points at one of the frames and says "and this was our proudest moment". There is no picture in the frame, only a small brass plaque on which is engraved "None of the above is acceptable."

Another quote from that first book: "Telephone operator" (not a human, apparently an AI) says "Sir, I have nine billion listings on three planets, nine moons, and twenty seven asteroids, and there is no 'Denver, City and County of'!"

Oh, and the current President of the NA Confederacy is Hugh Featherstone-Haugh (pronounced "Fanshaw") an African mountain gorilla.

I did mention this is fiction, right?

No, I don't see the world this way. Harry Lime was created by Graham Greene as total evil. But I do think that a little skepticism now and then can be extremely useful.

Greene was not the author of the line about the Borgias and Switzerland. They were interpolated by the ingenious Welles, who may have chosen to suppress in his memory that when Italy was enjoying the Borgias, Switzerland was enjoying a reputation as -- to quote Douglas Miller's "Swiss at War" -- "the most powerful and feared military force in Europe". Switzerland was about as neutral in those days as had been Mongolia under Genghis Kahn.

If we go to fiction for political thoughts, certainly one of my favorites comes from my absolutely favorite noir film of the 1940s. The Third Man. Harry Lime (Orson Welles) is explaining life to the naive and idealistic Holly Martins (Joseph Cotton). I take the quote from here



No, I don't see the world this way. Harry Lime was created by Graham Greene as total evil. But I do think that a little skepticism now and then can be extremely useful.

I remain interested in just how people do come to decisions. The title of this thread refers to Hillary Clinton and "ordinary people". Ordinary people seldom have deep discussions about quantum field theory. Nor are they prepared to hold their own with a professional economist. In this sense, I regard myself as ordinary. The difference between these two fields is that most people realize that they do not understand quantum field theory but an absurdly large number of people think that they fully understand economics.

Still, we vote, so we must choose. Ordinary people will elect the president. Someone once observed that all important decisions are made on the basis of insufficient information.

I saw that movie when I was very young. I was two when it came out, so it was some years after that. All I remember of it is that I liked it. I couldn't even tell you why.

Short commercial break ...

The American Film Institute in Silver Spring, Maryland is running a retrospective on the works of Orson Welles from April 17 thru July 1 which ends with a one-week run of The Third Man starting June 26.

My first thought about states was that Maryland, where I live, always votes Democratic. but wait, we just elected a Republican governor. And I voted for him. I would advise Democratic strategists to not get over-confident. If they can arrange to run against someone who likes to compare himself to Galileo that will boost their chances.

Specifically about Hillary: I have been told many times that she is very smart. Possibly it is even true. I have an open mind on that.

Actually, I think the country is in deep stuff.

That's just the fist 4 things that spring to mind, igoring supreme court justices. Trying to make it about Hillary's personality is what is wrong with the system.

The candidates shouldn't matter one iota - never has the gap between the GOP and the Democrats been bigger. The reason America is in deep is because people somehow think this is a personality battle between Hillary and whoever the republican clown car spits out. But look at the party policies for even 5 seconds:

Democrats pro social safety nut, republicans gut the ACA, medicare and convert medicare to a voucher system
Democrats pro high income tax hikes, and probably extent - Republicans cut taxes on the wealth and cut programs like food stamps that lower the effective tax rate on lower income family
Democrats pro 2010 finacial reform, republicans cut it including consumer protections
Democrats pro climate policy (if required to be exec action), republicans would block efforts to regulate.

That's just the fist 4 things that spring to mind, igoring supreme court justices - it's not inconceivable that 1-2 more republican justices could see gay marriage overturned. Trying to make it about Hillary's personality is what is wrong with the system.