Penn Jillette's counterintuitive commentary

[Meadmaker]

MIT professor and former IMF chief economist Simon Johnson wrote perhaps the best piece I've seen on the causes of the crisis, what should be done, and the reasons for why it isn't done.

Good piece. And frightening.

 

[Meadmaker]

If mhaze thinks Jillette was right, if anyone thinks that Jillette was right, please say so.

Obama, whom Jillette admits "drips smart" is trying to fix the recession, not the deficit. The deficit comes later.

Sheesh.

So.

It's true that Obama is trying to fix the recession, not the deficit. However, his budget projections say that he will make progress on both. He's going to increase spending dramatically. He is not going to raise taxes as much as he is going to raise spending. He says the deficit will decline.

That's counterintuitive, and I hope Obama knows something I don't.

 

[Dr Adequate]

So.

It's true that Obama is trying to fix the recession, not the deficit. However, his budget projections say that he will make progress on both. He's going to increase spending dramatically. He is not going to raise taxes as much as he is going to raise spending. He says the deficit will decline.

That's counterintuitive, and I hope Obama knows something I don't.

I'd have to look at the figures.

On this thread, I am just trying to make it clear that no-one, especially the President who "drips smart", has claimed that the stimulus plan (per se) will reduce the national debt.

 

[Puppycow]

That's counterintuitive, and I hope Obama knows something I don't.

Remember that republicans claim that lowering taxes reduces deficits too. Or, "tax cuts pay for themselves."

Counterintuitive, right?

“You cut taxes and the tax revenues increase.” — President Bush, February 8, 2006

“You have to pay for these tax cuts twice under these pay-go rules if you apply them, because these tax cuts pay for themselves.” — Senator Judd Gregg, then Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, March 9, 2006

Personally I think that Obama's budget projection is a very optimistic best-case scenario. Just like republicans who claim that tax cuts will spur so much economic growth that they will "pay for themselves.”

But I don't think that the national debt is at an alarmingly high level.
The numbers sound huge, but the US has a huge economy.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

Compare the US with Japan.

 

[mhaze]

Remember that republicans claim that lowering taxes reduces deficits too. Or, "tax cuts pay for themselves." Counterintuitive, right? Personally I think that Obama's budget projection is a very optimistic best-case scenario.

Right. The projection presumed a 4% GNP growth rate. We won't have that, there is no way.

Just like republicans who claim that tax cuts will spur so much economic growth that they will "pay for themselves.”

Economists note that a dollar in tax cuts will result in $3-4 of economic activity, while a dollar given out in a government program results in about another 40 cents of activity. The GAO has gone on record as saying Obama's budget and spending will have little or no effect on the economy in the first several years.

But I don't think that the national debt is at an alarmingly high level.
The numbers sound huge, but the US has a huge economy.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

Compare the US with Japan.

People have been shouting doom about the debt levels for decades, but at this time, with these levels of spending, yes, the debt is moving into very alarming levels. This you see by looking at the numbers.

For example, suppose that you make $100K per year and in the course of a month, you spend $200K and sign loan agreements for another 1,080K. That is exactly comparable to the current spending spree. (12.8T of new spending and debt, $1T in income tax revenues for individuals).

Further "spending" can have different effects. Consider for example the result of spending $2T to build 50 groups of 10 nuclear power plants. The effect of this on the balance of payments would be to move it from some $500-800B negative per year to $200-300B positive. Taking the low side, that's a 3 year payback and from then on it's all positive. So this investment would be one the government could do which would clearly have great benefits.

No such thing is happening or proposed.

 

[Meadmaker]

Remember that republicans claim that lowering taxes reduces deficits too. Or, "tax cuts pay for themselves."

Counterintuitive, right?

Right. I recall one candidate even called such claims "voodoo economics".


And, it turns out, they were wrong, and the debt got very, very, large, and the tax cuts didn't pay for themselves.

Is the debt too big? Am I just not getting the right perspective? My share of the national debt is approximately $36,000. (Source: National Debt Clock web page) My wife and son also have a share, so my family's share is $108,000.

That's more than I owe on my mortgage.

A lot of people think that's the wrong way of looking at it and......(insert arm waving here).... However, no. That's the right way of looking at it. I look at my paycheck, and in the "subtractions" area I see a really big one called "Federal taxes" and when I look at what that is spent on I see, "Interest on the debt." The right way to look at the debt is that each and every one of us is paying interest on it. My son, when he starts paying taxes, will have a much smaller paycheck because a whole generation of politicians, especially Reagan, GWB, and now Obama, decided that there were more important things to do than pay the bills.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'd have to look at the figures.

On this thread, I am just trying to make it clear that no-one, especially the President who "drips smart", has claimed that the stimulus plan (per se) will reduce the national debt.

Did Jillette say that?

Jillette did say that Obama is trying to spend his way out of financial trouble. Jillette is right. Jillette also says he knows a lot of people who tried that for themselves, and it didn't work out so well.

I look at Obama's budget projections and I see numbers that don't add up. I see that the plan for getting the economy rolling is a whole lot of spending. My intuition tells me that deficit spending results in short term gain, and long term pain.

ETA: The OP linked article didn't mention the stimulus plan. The OP linked article did say, "Obama says we can spend our way out of debt." I took that to mean his declining budget deficit numbers from his budget plan.

I hope I'm wrong.

 

[elbe]

Jillette did say that Obama is trying to spend his way out of financial trouble. Jillette is right. Jillette also says he knows a lot of people who tried that for themselves, and it didn't work out so well.

I don't imagine most individuals' financial troubles are any sort of personal recession, though.

 

[mhaze]

Did Jillette say that?

Jillette did say that Obama is trying to spend his way out of financial trouble. Jillette is right. Jillette also says he knows a lot of people who tried that for themselves, and it didn't work out so well.

I look at Obama's budget projections and I see numbers that don't add up. I see that the plan for getting the economy rolling is a whole lot of spending. My intuition tells me that deficit spending results in short term gain, and long term pain.

ETA: The OP linked article didn't mention the stimulus plan. The OP linked article did say, "Obama says we can spend our way out of debt." I took that to mean his declining budget deficit numbers from his budget plan.

I hope I'm wrong.

I suppose it is difficult to cut out the double talk and tongue-in-cheek comment, and simply look at the numbers, and say, here are the effects? That is why people are taught math starting in the first or second grade and proceeding through school. They are not taught the alternative of relying on "hope" and not using their ability to think things out.

Well, until now, anyway.

 

[Beerina]

Beerina's statement is that government is the only entity that can restrict freedom. That's wrong.

Do not confuse people refusing to deal with you of their own free will, which free people reserve to themselves as their right, with someone pulling out a gun, or threatening to do so, and demanding you give them some of your money, property, or effort.

So you are quite literally, wrong about that.


Secondly, you probably fantasize massive problems caused by unrestricted capitalism, all the while ignoring that not-capitalism, i.e. not-freedom, is far worse all around.

Capitalism is raising China and India up out of the dirt floors era. And what do the hand-wringers in the West worry about? Long or dangerous factory hours for low pay. But compared to...what?

I have a whole basket of hems and haws you can choose from. Take as many as you like.

An earlier statement said that laissez-faire capitalism was the only system that ought to be considered, because every other system restricted freedom. (That's a paraphrase from memory, not an exact quote.) That's wrong.

Again, a declaration from you is not even an observation of reality, much less a logical argument.


You believe in a worldview that has taught you that capitalism, i.e. freedom, and its dynamism is the worst possible thing. Yet when mapped against actual, measurable indicators of human prosperity, it is unparalleled.

See, that's how science works. Theories. Predictions. Measure the outcomes against the predictions. Revise as necessary.


Last century had hundreds of economic experiments with billions of people that showed a powerful correlation between freedom of the market and the general prosperity of the nation.

 

[Meadmaker]

Do not confuse people refusing to deal with you of their own free will, which free people reserve to themselves as their right, with someone pulling out a gun, or threatening to do so, and demanding you give them some of your money, property, or effort.

Unless of course they own all the food and they choose, of their own free will, not to sell any of it to me. Or, perhaps, they will sell me some, but only if I agree to work 60 hours per week in their vineyards, while they retain the right to terminate my employment for any cause. Well of course they have that right, and if anyone with a gun came along and suggested that they really ought to sell me some food even though I only worked forty hours per week, that would be a horrible transgression of justice and the rights of man. Likewise, if someone with a gun said they were required to pay me for my fourty hours of labor even though I worshipped a different god than the food-owners, that too would be a horrible transgression of the rights of man, would it not?

That seems to be the implication of your statements with regard to laissez-faire capitalism.

You believe in a worldview that has taught you that capitalism, i.e. freedom, and its dynamism is the worst possible thing.

I believe no such thing, nor is there a reasonable interpretation of anything I said that could lead one to such a conclusion.

I have said, and I believe, that unrestricted laissez-faire capitalism is not the best possible thing. Any other interpretation is your own invention.



And, lest this be seen as a derail, let's not forget why we're discussing this. Penn Jillette questioned whether Obama's methods, which he found counterintuitive, were the best. I agree with Jillette. However, you suggested that laissez-faire captitalism was the only reasonable system. I assume you were suggesting that since Obama's methods depart from laissez-faire capitalism, they were not the best possible approach. You can correct me if I'm wrong, about why you brought up laissez-faire capitalism.

I reject your premise that anything that deviates from laissez-faire capitalism is necessarily suboptimal. Therefore, whether Obama's plans are good or bad, your argumenta against them are unsound.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Do not confuse people refusing to deal with you of their own free will, which free people reserve to themselves as their right, with someone pulling out a gun, or threatening to do so, and demanding you give them some of your money, property, or effort.

So you are quite literally, wrong about that.


Secondly, you probably fantasize massive problems caused by unrestricted capitalism, all the while ignoring that not-capitalism, i.e. not-freedom, is far worse all around.

Capitalism is raising China and India up out of the dirt floors era. And what do the hand-wringers in the West worry about? Long or dangerous factory hours for low pay. But compared to...what?

I have a whole basket of hems and haws you can choose from. Take as many as you like.




Again, a declaration from you is not even an observation of reality, much less a logical argument.


You believe in a worldview that has taught you that capitalism, i.e. freedom, and its dynamism is the worst possible thing. Yet when mapped against actual, measurable indicators of human prosperity, it is unparalleled.

See, that's how science works. Theories. Predictions. Measure the outcomes against the predictions. Revise as necessary.


Last century had hundreds of economic experiments with billions of people that showed a powerful correlation between freedom of the market and the general prosperity of the nation.

And the Scandinavian countries are what, flukes then?

 

[Bluefire]

And the Scandinavian countries are what, flukes then?

No, they are an excellent example confirming Beerina's thesis.

 

[mhaze]

.....I reject your premise that anything that deviates from laissez-faire capitalism is necessarily suboptimal. Therefore, whether Obama's plans are good or bad, your argumenta against them are unsound.

You are certainly correct. The deviations from laissez-faire capitalism shown by drone soldier and queen ants coupled with the repetoire of instinctual behavior patterns and lack of intelligence is not suboptimal for the optimal life of an ant. This is a logical truism and a logical fallacy since the "sub" part construed as "subserviant" extends to create the following:

suboptimal = optimal for subserviant
optimal life = subservient

Wait....we were talking about people. No, their best and highest purpose is not the toiling of the proletariat, eg the life of an ant.

 

[elbe]

Wait....we were talking about people. No, their best and highest purpose is not the toiling of the proletariat, eg the life of an ant.

On an episode of dirty jobs they showed ants where the old ones worked in the colony's landfill so they wouldn't have to be moved there when they die. Now that's efficient.

But why exactly did you bring up ants?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

No, they are an excellent example confirming Beerina's thesis.

... 80% unionization rates with many government owned industries, high welfare and regulation, etc. = free market capitalism?

 

[lomiller]

Did Jillette say that?

Jillette did say that Obama is trying to spend his way out of financial trouble.

his exact words:

Obama tells us that we can spend our way out of debt

Obama has said no such thing

Jillette also says

He says we can get out of all those big wars President Bush caused by sending more troops into Afghanistan.

Obama has said no such thing, he has said all along he will pull troops out of Iraq and put them in Afghanistan but has never putting troops in Afghanistan will get the US out of Iraq.

 

[pchams]

When the Romans, or any past culture that we know extracted money from provinces outside the realm, we called it weregild. or reparations, or taxes.
If the U.S. borrows [more] money now, will it ever be repaid?
Or is it colonialism in it's present form?

 

[Dr Adequate]

You are certainly correct. The deviations from laissez-faire capitalism shown by drone soldier and queen ants coupled with the repetoire of instinctual behavior patterns and lack of intelligence is not suboptimal for the optimal life of an ant. This is a logical truism and a logical fallacy since the "sub" part construed as "subserviant" extends to create the following:

suboptimal = optimal for subserviant
optimal life = subservient

Wait....we were talking about people. No, their best and highest purpose is not the toiling of the proletariat, eg the life of an ant.

It is interesting that you wish to compare the American working classes to insects.

I wonder if there was some other point that you wished to make. Only your post seems to be the utmost in meaningless gibberish.

 

[Dr Adequate]

And the Scandinavian countries are what, flukes then?

Oh, stuff that exists doesn't count. You should know that by now.