B8005-5 Arguments: Clarification of Opinions

THE CLARIFICATION OF OPINIONS: We could say that some arguments serve to establish particular opinions in others where no such opinions existed previously. To “win” an argument, thus, is to form or affect a new opinion in another person.

TRIVIALITY: But let us understand, first, that all arguments that seek to change opinions are, by their very nature, trivial. While it is true that the arguments themselves may seem very important to the persons arguing the particular cases, in any reasonable scheme of things it makes very little difference whether I believe, say, that the moon is either made of Green Cheese or if it is made of Compressed Twinkies. In either case my opinion - along with one American dollar - will get me a coffee at McDonalds, and very little else; i.e., my opinions, like the arguments themselves, are ipso facto trivial.

THE NATURE OF OPINIONS: Since opinions are philosophically identical with contradictions, there can be no “correct” opinions. Instead, there is nothing out there but a bewildering array of competing opinions, each of which is valid for his owner, but not necessarily for others. Listening to others bray about their opinions is very similar to flipping through a catalogue of highway signs: each sign wags its scolding finger in your face without any practical effect. At the end of the day, the catalogue - and your interlocutors’ opinions - can be tossed into the trash can.

THE FUTILITY OF ARGUING AGAINST OPINIONS: In any really objective sense of the word, it’s a hopeless task to badger another person with relentless ferocity in order to change his opinion. Far better, one should allow the other to steep in his delusions until he, himself, comes to the conclusion that his opinion is unwarranted by existing conditions or facts. Don’t change the opinions of others; let the conditions change the opinions:

EDUCATION: We often hear an array of arguments about spending additional sums on education. Almost always such arguments take the form of what will happen to "our children" if we fail to spend less than x-dollars per pupil. It is a fruitless task to counter such arguments with economic specificity. Rather, it is always a more effective approach to give the education leeches precisely what they ask for in the hope that eventually they will build such a large edifice that the salaries, operating and maintenance costs will simply overwhelm the system. Currently, many state governments are operating with budgets severely in deficit because of past excesses in granting every silly educational demand that was placed upon the state legislature. For years conservatives have argued for some kind of restraint, and they have made those arguments to no avail - until now. Once the critical mass has been reached with extravagant spending (as it is today), further arguments are no longer necessary because everyone from the smallest child to the oldest man can see that the budgets are not sustainable under any taxing scheme. The educational establishment is ready to become undone by its past "successes."

KEYNESIAN ECONOMICS: At the present time we are participating in an economic experiment. Some, like the Captain Ja-Boom Tisch's (i.e., Obama's) administration, have argued for stimulus spending to give a Keynesian boost to the economy. Huge sums of money had been spent in the attempt to prove that Keynesianism actually does something. To date, however, the results are exceedingly unsatisfactory. The amount of money that's been spent is slowly crushing the private sector, and less charitably, is destroying the United States of America. Yet the persons responsible for continuing to support these silly Keynesian ideas are not dissuaded by the results that we are now seeing. Instead they firmly believe that we need to spend more to make this work. Or as one wag put it so well, "If you failed to fly after you jumped off a 10-foot step ladder, perhaps you could try jumping off of the roof of your house." There will come a point, obviously, when it is no longer feasible to pretend that additional deficit spending will stimulate the economy. The problem, however, is that the United States may no longer exist when these economic morons finally come to their senses.

KILLING ME SOFTLY WITH HIS WORDS: Second, all arguments that seek to change opinions are never attempts to discover objective truth itself, but instead, are always attempts to squeeze some gritty exudate through the grille surrounding the opponent’s head. The end of such argumentation is to smother the opponent in a virtual helmet of irrefutable logic, from which he cannot see or breathe or even speak. All in all, the argument seeks to conclude with one party silent and unable to speak.

B1042-7 Walking the Plank

       Well, another economic advisor is getting ready to jump Captain Ja-Boom Tisch’s ship.  What does that make now, four people?  Or is it five?  All of them curled up in the corner like last Fall’s leaves, wondering if spending another half-trillion dollars, or a trillion dollars, or two trillion dollars would have put the “economy” back on its feet.
    Once again, children, Keynesian economics does not work.  You have all the evidence that you need to realize that Keynesian economics does not work.  Pay attention now.  Let me say that again, “Keynesian economics does not work.”  You cannot spend yourself into prosperity.  Were that true, every Greek would equal Croesus in wealth.
    All of those so-called “economists” will return to their tenured academic posts to infect future generations of students with their failed notions of how the world works.  It’s too bad that someone doesn’t stop them at the front door and redirect them to the abundant employment opportunities available at Walmart.

B1042-5 Moron Politics: Dumb Mythology & Other Diversions

Saddled With Stupidity:  Sometimes I think about the accepted mythology of Montezuma when the Spanish conquistadors hit the beach in the Sixteenth Century.  The Spaniards were not seen as invading, threatening beings; rather, they were seen as gods bringing the fruition and fulfilment to history.   By the time Montezuma figured out that the Spaniards were not as benign as their fanciful Mesoamerican mythology would have it, it was really too late to resist the conquistadors. Some would blame Montezuma for his failed leadership.  Others would see the corrosive effect of a faulty world-view on a civilization.  I’m going with the dumb world-view option myself.  Montezuma wasn’t a poor leader.  He was just plain stupid in the face of a sharply-evolving reality.

a.    Science:  Failure to see the world as it is - rather than as one would like to imagine it - is really a common problem.  And this impairment goes across many lines of human endeavor.  The young “scientist,” for example, struggles to incorporate the mythology of science into his thinking while he is in college.  Once he masters the jargon of his field of study, he is no longer capable of being a scientist in the truest sense of the word.  Instead, he becomes a perpetuator of accepted and conventional scientific myths.  In other words, he becomes a cheerleader for the staid enterprise of established science.  He becomes part of the welcoming party on the beach when the mysterious galleons sail into view.

b.    Economics:  One of the more durable myths in economics today is that of Keynesianism as an effective countermeasure for economic ennui.  The scheme has been tried repeatedly since Lord Keynes first promulgated the theory.  In every instance it has been shown to be an abject failure.  Every. Single. Instance.  Yet, each new generation of would-be economists is paraded through the Hall of Mirrors in the House of Keynes as if the theory itself were worth discussing and teaching.  It is the economic equivalent of science’s Phlogiston Theory: It sounds good, but it simply doesn’t work.  To be sure, it should be economics’ most pertinent example of Bad Ideas Gone Wild.  It should only be shown as a Bad Example.  It isn’t, however.  Endless lines of academics recount the horrid lessons of Keynesianism that they learned in Econ 101 as if those lessons were true.  But they are not.  Ms. Christina Romer, former chairman of the president’s council of economic advisors, is one of the latest victims of pretending that a manifestly false economic theory has any merit.  Some  believe that Ms. Romer resigned her chairmanship.  I’m of the opinion that she was fired, not for advising a bad public policy, but rather for a fundamental and obstinate stupidity about things economical.  If it hasn’t worked for five-hundred-and-fifty-times, why would anyone think it should work on the five-hundredth-and-fifty-first time?  How many times does Keynesianism have to stub its toe against the end table of reality before it decides to walk around that object?

c.    Politics: A common Democrat myth in today's world might be simply categorized under the heading of "Taxing the Rich."  Many Democrats believe that the rich should pay their "fair share" of taxes, and they propose that the tax rates for the super wealthy should be raised. They explain why those rates should be raised by saying that the super-rich should pay for the deficits that the country experiences in its tax accounts. Yet, when it is explained that if the United States took every single dime of the super wealthy and applied them towards those deficits, those funds wouldn't begin to cover those deficits. The Democrats' counter-argument to that statement is to stare off into space blankly and then to repeat the talking point that the tax rates for the super wealthy should be raised. In other words, they argue by repeating a basic false premise without supplying any further, supporting evidence. Their counter-argument is simply a non sequitur of belief rather than logic.  That the rich should pay their "fair share" of taxes is an article of faith among Democrats. "Fair share," however, is never defined in constructive ways that anyone could discover.   Exactly what percentage of income that should be confiscated from the rich is never stated definitively. Rather, it is always stated in such a way that the amount should be sufficient to eliminate the debt. Notice that the amount is always open-ended.

B4022-3 Moron Economics: Keynesian Spending

“You don’t have to be an orthodox Keynesian to understand that as long as the private sector is deleveraging the public sector has to borrow and spend in order to keep the economy moving forward.” (Robert B. Reich. "The Necessity of Obamanomics," The Wall Street Journal, 5 February 2010, p. A17)

Well. If it’s that simple, why doesn’t the “public sector” borrow, say, 20 trillion dollars and just forget about the stingy “private sector” altogether? Twenty trillions of dollars would buy a whole bunch of economic activity. That way we would not have to worry about the deleveraged private sector skimping on its end of the economic balance of power.

For some crazy reason we do not do that.

But here’s a flash for Professor Reich: The “public sector” always spends the wealth of the “private sector.” Always. There is no wealth that belongs to the public sector, per se. All of it, always and everywhere, belongs to the “private sector.” What we pretend is the “public sector” is nothing more than the laws, institutions, and controlling forces that deprive the “private sector” of its rightful property, by its own consent, until such time as that is no longer practicable (viz., today). Then - as in the past - the people will rise up to sever the relationship between a rapacious “public sector” and themselves. Look for it. That time is coming. See Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts for recent pertinent examples

The deleveraging Mr. Reich speaks about in his essay - a deleveraging that resulted from the collapse of housing evaluations - really means that the private sector (in other words, you and me) has less liquidity with which to spend on discretionary items. How is it possible to take wealth (i.e., taxes) that the private sector does not have because of the collapse of values and spend it to keep the economy moving forward? Ah, by borrowing those funds from our future earnings, or more properly, by borrowing the funds that belong to our children and grandchildren or China. But it’s all coming from the private sector. All of it.

Why is it so difficult for Keynesians to see that?

Some wag has said: “You can pull on your boots as hard as you want. But you’re not going to lift yourself off the ground.”