The Odd Lies of Paul Ryan

[Regnad Kcin]

Business Insider: Paul Ryan's Speech Proves The New Political Truth: It's Fine To Lie

From there: "Jeff Greenfield says that none of this will matter to voters, who will just blame the media and its silly 'fact-checkers.' And he's presumably right."

Just as Kaosium is demonstrating.

 

[Kaosium]

LOL. You pick company towns as an example? In company towns, the company WAS the government, and it ruled over a group of wage slaves who had little choice but to work for that town government and buy from that town government. Odd that you choose a communistic system as a model for how things can operate without government infrastructure.

The point was those things still existed, not that it was best at that extreme, didn't I say that? Anything government can build, business can too, and it just so happens that taxes for government come (mainly) from business and the taxes they pay and the jobs they produce and the taxes those supply as well. One should not feel beholden to government if they create a successful business, that's what built the government! This economy in this country--and all capitalist ones--was built mainly by entrepreneurship, not by government.

Plus, they still used the infrastructure of the larger government. They had railroads and other things that connected them to the larger country. They did not exist in isolation.

(pedantic aside)
Who built those railroads? In fact is was often the ones building the railroads that built those kind of towns!
(/pedantic aside)

However, I understand what you mean, but that wasn't what I was trying to get at, simply to illustrate that the things that were listed by Obama as being built by government do not require the government to do that, they can be done independent of government. Note again I did not say that it was best at any extreme, but merely philosophically the economy doesn't need government, but government needs the economy. It's even possible some of the things we have government do could better be done without it. Note I'm not talking about privatizing the military, the justice system or anything you might be thinking would lead to disaster!

Perhaps a better and simpler example: the government can run utilities, but it might be better for everyone if they didn't. They will still exist, and do in some places, without the government running--or even building--them.

In other words, this is a very bad example you've chosen to defend your point.

Perhaps it was.

Yes, I undertstand the point, and I disagree with it.

Fair enough.

 

[Kaosium]

You know up until now I haven't seen anyone - anyone - try to frame that whole "you didn't build it" soundbite like that. I know how that argument works but it's still bs, that's not what this is about. The people at the convention holding up signs that said "we DID build it!" weren't making some philosophical point about the government's role in society. The attack ads that paired the soundbite alongside the guy saying that he and his family did build his business weren't presenting it as a college level thesis on Hayek's work. Are you seriously trying to claim this? what's wrong with you?

I understand the arguments behind sound-bites.

Yeah, I'm done here. If you can't even pretend to be intellectually honest I don't see the point. You started with a simple premise, maybe he wasn't lying but was honestly wrong but then it quickly diverged into 'everyone who thinks he lied is part of a smear campaign' to the point of dismissing entire sources because they didn't agree with you. Yeah, I made a joke about the Fox opinion piece (the clue was when I called it the vanguard of the left), but you attacked the writer instead of addressing any points she may have had. You've lost any trustworthiness I might have had for you.

What would you expect me to think of you if everything you said about me isn't true? Incidentally some of my arguments were made on the 'GOP convention thread' starting here.

Anyway, here's the clip of Obama. I see him as arguing for the necessity of government spending in the economy ("I'm not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy")and illustrating it with services the government performs and has performed, and claiming that those who are successful have government to thank for it--they couldn't have done it themselves. He claims that it isn't because they're smart or hard working as there's a lot of smart hard working people out there, he thinks the those people were the ones helped by government--that was the catalyst.

I and others think the difference was often entrepreneurship. Here's a summary of 'we did build that.'

You do not have to worry about me ever calling you intellectual, as for dishonest...I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.

ETA: As for the theme of the OP: I'm not exactly inclined to believe Ryan is a congenital liar. I still think the marathon thing was just bragging, and I think the speech was targeted for a sympathetic audience to tell them what they wanted to head; Obama = bad. That's not enough, for me, to say that Ryan is regularly dishonest, at least beyond the average politician.

I got there too, I just did it faster and discovered (in part) why others almost instantly started saying something different.

 

[AlBell]

I have run a marathon. And yes, almost 25 years later, I still know my exact finishing time. I posted about this on my Facebook and a friend who also runs said this,



There is no way Ryan does not know this - not just the time, but that there's a record of it somewhere. How he would not understand that someone would check this is not at all clear to me. Maybe he was so nervous that he couldn't keep things straight. I can understand that some people have serious nervous conditions that make it hard to keep facts straight or relate them when asked in high pressure situations. But then such a person shouldn't be the VP of the USA, either.

Thank goodness Biden is perfect in the job.

 

[GlennB]

I have run a marathon. And yes, almost 25 years later, I still know my exact finishing time. I posted about this on my Facebook and a friend who also runs said this,

Surely it goes further? His original statements clearly indicate that he ran multiple marathons. Getting your time wrong by a notch might be understandable (I can't truly recall if my first half-marathon was 1:43 or 1:48) but wrong by over an hour or that you ran the distance a number of times when it was was just once is plain lying. It's utterly impossible to forget those things, but the number of runs especially.

Anyway, I expect Democrat supporters to print up t-shirts with a picture of Ryan, his claimed time, and the legend "Marathon Man" together with a big fat ""

 

[Frank Newgent]

I understand the arguments behind sound-bites.

I know with sound bites being so short you have to be very calculating in what you say. Still, understanding the arguments behind sound-bites is usually difficult for me.

I find that a full fifteen-second video clip highlighting the out of context stuff, generally, provides the additional depth and detail I need to understand the argument being summarized.

 

[magellan]

You misunderstand what they meant by that. This is an old philosophical argument regarding the relation between government and business. In a very basic sense it's just Keynes vs. Hayek. However I will give special marks for Obama's bluntness for him to go out saying that way to campaign contributors!

You might want to reread your Hayek, especially Maggie Thatchers favourite "Constitution of Freedom" In it he outlines 5 basic things the state must do:
1) Enforce a fair system of laws
2) Provide common goods (That would be the roads for example)
3) Collect taxes
4) Issue certificates and collect&publish information on market participants
5) Provide for the basic needs of citizens

... might want to reread keynes too while you are at it.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

You might want to reread your Hayek,

Indeed. Here's a relevant excerpt from Kaosium's own link:

It is disquieting to see in England and the United States today the same drawing together of forces and nearly the same contempt of all that is liberal in the old sense....

The liberal argument does not advocate leaving things just as they are; it favors making the best possible use of the forces of competition as a means of coordinating human efforts. It is based on the conviction that, where effective competition can be created, it is a better way of guiding individual efforts than any other. It emphasizes that in order to make competition work beneficially a carefully thought-out legal framework is required, and that neither the past nor the existing legal rules are free from grave defects....The successful use of competition does not preclude some types of government interference. For instance, to limit working hours, to require certain sanitary arrangements, to provide an extensive system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. There are, too, certain fields where the system of competition is impracticable. For example, the harmful effects of deforestation or of the smoke of factories cannot be confined to the owner of the property in question....To create conditions in which competition will be as effective as possible, to prevent fraud and deception, to break up monopolies— these tasks provide a wide and unquestioned field for state activity.

 

[Kaosium]

You might want to reread your Hayek, especially Maggie Thatchers favourite "Constitution of Freedom" In it he outlines 5 basic things the state must do:
1) Enforce a fair system of laws
2) Provide common goods (That would be the roads for example)
3) Collect taxes
4) Issue certificates and collect&publish information on market participants
5) Provide for the basic needs of citizens

... might want to reread keynes too while you are at it.

I'm not sure what you're getting at nor how you think it applies to what I was saying, did I fail to qualify enough times or adamantly enough that this is much more complicated and that I was merely engaging it briefly on the philosophical level?

Regarding my posting Road to Serfdom and General Theory, Obama is the President, what he has influence over is the Federal government, most of those (economic) things would be and (generally are) better provided by state and local governments. Don't you suppose Hayek might disagree on whether it would be wise to have those subject to central planning whereas Keynes would be less wary? That they might have a fundamental disagreement with the necessity of government intervention in the economy?

Incidentally I was not trying to make an anarchist argument to Tricky, merely to point out that those things do not require government. That's the only application I can see for you posting those five things from 'Constitution of Liberty.' Now are you trying to suggest Hayek would agree with Obama's philosophy (or even what he said) because of what you've posted? I'm not trying to create a strawman, I honestly don't understand what you're trying to get at.

 

[Kaosium]

Indeed. Here's a relevant excerpt from Kaosium's own link:

Do you think that Hayak would agree with what Obama said, I mean the part where he says that the difference between smart and hardworking people being successful in the United States is basically the amount (or quality) of government spending on them, presumably from the Federal government as that's what he was talking about being cut?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Do you think that Hayak would agree with what Obama said,

I very much doubt whether Hayek (note spelling) would agree with absolutely everything Barack Obama has ever said. I don't either.

On the other hand, I am quite certain that Friedrich Hayek's disagreements would have been far more substantive and interesting than those that you and others have been expressing in this and other threads.

In particular, I'm pretty sure that Hayek would have deplored the childishly out-of-context narrative that the Republican Party (Skeptic Ginger: note spelling) has been trying to construct around the "you didn't build that" sentence fragment.

I mean the part where he says that the difference between smart and hardworking people being successful in the United States is basically the amount (or quality) of government spending on them, presumably from the Federal government as that's what he was talking about being cut?

I very much doubt whether Hayek would have denied the helpful role of government-funded infrastructure in the success of smart and hardworking citizens.

 

[Clayton Moore]

I certainly criticized it, and I have no problem with people criticizing Ryan for it. As it turned out Kerry was something of a fabulist; there were numerous examples of him making up stories about himself. He claimed to have gone into Cambodia; that never happened. He claimed to have delivered a breech-birth baby to a Vietnamese woman on his Swift Boat; that also did not happen.

If it turns out that Ryan has a similar penchant for tall tales, I will find it troubling.

Kerry's lies were so disgusting I voted for Bush.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry#Controversy

As the presidential campaign of 2004 developed, approximately 200 Vietnam veterans formed the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), subsequently renamed Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, which held press conferences, ran ads and endorsed a book questioning Kerry's service record and his military awards. The group included several members of Kerry's unit, such as Larry Thurlow, who commanded a swift boat alongside of Kerry's,[45] and Stephen Gardner, who served on Kerry's boat.[46]

Ryan is likely a pathological liar. If you train for something as time consuming and as arduous as required by running a marathon you don't forget your first and only time. Certainly not mistaking the HOUR number by saying TWO rather than FOUR.

 

[varwoche]

Kerry's lies were so disgusting I voted for Bush.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry#Controversy

As the presidential campaign of 2004 developed, approximately 200 Vietnam veterans formed the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), subsequently renamed Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, which held press conferences, ran ads and endorsed a book questioning Kerry's service record and his military awards. The group included several members of Kerry's unit, such as Larry Thurlow, who commanded a swift boat alongside of Kerry's,[45] and Stephen Gardner, who served on Kerry's boat.[46]

You didn't look deep enough -- not even close. You should know, for instance, that Thurlow was so discredited that it's downright pathetic. And Gardner wasn't even there for the events in question (when Kerry earned his medals). Sheesh.

 

[DavidJames]

Kerry's lies were so disgusting I voted for Bush.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry#Controversy.

That you believe in the Swift Boat nonsense isn't surprising at all.

Are there any conspiracy theories you don't believe?

 

[Kaosium]

I very much doubt whether Hayek (note spelling) would agree with absolutely everything Barack Obama has ever said. I don't either.

That's basically a meaningless statement regardless of your spelling prowess!

On the other hand, I am quite certain that Friedrich Hayek's disagreements would have been far more substantive and interesting than those that you and others have been expressing in this and other threads.

I agree.

In particular, I'm pretty sure that Hayek would have deplored the childishly out-of-context narrative that the Republican Party (Skeptic Ginger: note spelling) has been trying to construct around the "you didn't build that" sentence fragment.

I (basically) only saw the convention, I avoid campaign commercials and have little interest in the incestuous and cannibalistic punditry that passes for a political debate these days on the talking head puppet parade or in the 'blogosphere.' What I'm interested in at this juncture is what you think he meant by suggesting that the difference between smart and hardworking people succeeding was the amount or quality of government spending, presumably by the federal government.

If it was simply a misstatement, that's fine, it happens to public speakers. If he switched focus midstream (from federal spending being cut) and chose to illustrate his argument with things closer to home, that's fine too. I've not heard much of anything from his camp suggesting that happened, but then again I didn't go looking for it. However it does appear to completely discount the value of entrepreneurship, and rather fits with the 'you didn't build that' soundbite, that's rather an odd coincidence!

I very much doubt whether Hayek would have denied the helpful role of government-funded infrastructure in the success of smart and hardworking citizens.

I would have to agree, however that's not really the interesting portion of his statement, merely the illustrative. If the breadth of your knowledge matches your spelling prowess you'd probably realize I'm being damned generous to assume he was speaking in Keynsian terms, as I simply gave him the benefit of the doubt as that has been the general economic policy of his Administration, going from what I've read of Paul Krugman at the NYT which I have occasionally perused.

 

[lomiller]

You do not understand the argument, it's apparently too complex for some. Very simply: Obama was arguing that the government was necessary for the success of business and was illustrating it by listing infrastructure and other things that he thinks helped build that business.

Yup

The opposing argument is it was taxes from business (and other tax-generating activities) that funded those projects and those things exist because of previous successful entrepreneurship

That's not a counter argument, it's the same argument as above.

the like thus each person who builds a successful enterprise should not feel beholden to government spending either in the past or now.

This doesn't follow from the statements that preceded it. If the government had not taxed then the infrastructure would not exist nor would the business. Likewise if there are no current taxes to build and maintain new infrastructure future business will not exist.

What's really going on is that Republicans want to promise people something for nothing, a free ride as it were. They want to promise people they can have the the infrastructure, plus businesses and jobs that depend on that infrastructure without paying for it. This is why they have habitually tilted the US into debt for the last 32 years.

 

[jaxson]

The marathon ‘lie’ is, I think, a little disturbing. There was absolutely no need for it and yet it popped out. Yes, it could have been simply bragging (i.e. lying), as someone mentioned above, but this isn’t a couple of blokes in a pub talking about fish they caught - it’s a potential high office aspirant giving a gross distortion.

We’ll never know if Ryan has perpetuated this distortion throughout his post-marathon life knowingly or unknowingly (though maybe people will remember him saying 10 years ago that he’d achieved a time of 3’ 38” or so…..5 years ago maybe a time of 3’ 05” or so…) but whatever his awareness of the distortion he either comes across as deceitful or delusional.

If he knowingly lies about his achievement, he’s a charlatan and fool – not the best VP material. There’s no regard to the listener, expecting acceptance of something he knows is a lie (and can easily be discovered to be a lie). This is hard to stomach from anyone even if they have a reputation for brown-nosing.

On the other hand, if he’s convinced himself over the years that he ran much faster than he did (actually coming to believe it without too much of a dissonance) then he’s at the least delusional and unfit for high office or anything else. Well, maybe ‘cept for a half marathon.

Either option’s unpalatable, but so are the alternatives. He ‘mis-spoke’? Nervousness at being interviewed? Alien abduction mid-race?

Running a marathon is an accomplishment. Few do it. Fewer need to lie about it.

 

[lomiller]

Do you think that Hayak would agree with what Obama said, I mean the part where he says that the difference between smart and hardworking people being successful in the United States is basically the amount (or quality) of government spending on them, presumably from the Federal government as that's what he was talking about being cut?

Who cares what Hayak would agree with. He's a from a lunatic fringe branch of social engineering masquerading as economics. he plays no functional role in modern economics.


Milton Friedman:

I think the Austrian business-cycle theory has done the world a great deal of harm. If you go back to the 1930s, which is a key point, here you had the Austrians sitting in London, Hayek and Lionel Robbins, and saying you just have to let the bottom drop out of the world. You’ve just got to let it cure itself. You can’t do anything about it. You will only make it worse. You have Rothbard saying it was a great mistake not to let the whole banking system collapse. I think by encouraging that kind of do-nothing policy both in Britain and the United States, they did harm.

In the real world there are smart hardworking people everywhere and the difference between the countries that succeed and the ones that fail is the ability to marry free markets with infrastructure and education. No where, not one single place, has ever had a modern thriving economy without doing this.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

What I'm interested in at this juncture is what you think he meant by suggesting that the difference between smart and hardworking people succeeding was the amount or quality of government spending, presumably by the federal government.

No, Kaosium, your response (and your repetition of that question, which I have already answered) made it perfectly clear that you have no interest in what I think.

 

[Kaosium]

Who cares what Hayek would agree with. He's a from a lunatic fringe branch of social engineering masquerading as economics. he plays no functional role in modern economics.

Actually (if you actually meant it) that would put you on the lunatic fringe then, it's a relative thing.

John Maynard Keynes would not have agreed, and in fact found many things to agree with and was quite complimentary of "The Road to Serfdom." I could even dig up some quotes if you want!


Milton Friedman:

​

That does not invalidate Hayek's philosophy, though I don't agree with him there. I don't think Friedman was right about the inability of the US to recover from the Great Depression either, our problems went deeper than monetary policy! I do think his suggestions and policies were helpful in the Seventies and Eighties however.

In the real world there are smart hardworking people everywhere and the difference between the countries that succeed and the ones that fail is the ability to marry free markets with infrastructure and education. No where, not one single place, has ever had a modern thriving economy without doing this.

Yes, I agree on a basic level. Is that all Obama was trying to say and just misspoke off the cuff? Why doesn't anyone just admit that? (or have they?)