General

Re: The Broken Window and the Recession

xahrx — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 14:10:06 GMT

CDB = me, xahrx. CDB is the name I use on almost every internet forum I'm a part of. If it's available when I register, I grab it. I registered here a long time ago though, I'm not sure if CDB was taken then or if I just hadn't used that name yet. xahrx was the domain name of a website I had registered for a while but let drop back in the old days of the interwebs, early and mid 90s. I got it mainly for the associated email account and because I wanted to practice my html and start my own blog, though that's not what it was called then. I've been yelling at people on the internet for being wrong! since it started.

CDB stands for Crazy Dutch Bastard, which is a nick name I've gotten from some friends that sort of stuck.

Re: The Broken Window and the Recession

Neodoxy — Thu, 31 Jan 2013 01:44:40 GMT

Oh boy. I really missed this thread.

Anyway, yes I've been referencing it. This I intend to readdress this general topic sometime in the fairly near future, except this time the argument will be... HARDER! BETTER! FASTER! STRONGER! Drinks will be served alongside caviar and fugu because of how extreme the NEW and IMPROVED thread will be.

The new thread will be more realistic, more interesting, more condensed, more broaderer, deal with higher level Keynesian and Austrian theory, and it will be more critical of parts of both theories

Babies will cry and all the beasts of the earth will shudder as this thread is born. The stars themselves will align as the flamewars commence and Keynes and Hayek themselves will rise from the grave to engage in the debate. Brace yourselves, Neodoxy's recession thread is coming.

So yes, this topic will be returned to. But at the moment, I just hope that this thread dies and is buried forever, hopefully to be replaced by a purer and higher quality successor

Unfortunately for any interested parties you're going to have to sit tight until I'm done with this quarter because I'm pretty bogged down with work over here.

Also, who here is the user "CDB" from the Liberty HQ forums? DD5? Xarhrx? Someone else?

Re: The Broken Window and the Recession

xahrx — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 21:40:09 GMT

Kicked to the top for Neodoxy, you talking about this thread on the other forum?

Re: The Broken Window and the Recession

xahrx — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:10:00 GMT

Key point there is the hoarding. To the extent 'the rich' hoard money, it affects their decisions of how to use the money they don't hoard. So on a macro level money will simply increase or decrease in value relative to demand, but on the micro or personal level each individual's assessment of how much wealth they have to invest or spend is influenced by their demand for wealth in reserve, and likewise each entrepreneur's decision of how to use their current labor and what new labor to aquire will be influenced by how much labor is in reserve. Now, I can understand thus being complicated by people's empathy with people who are 'in reserve' and this unemployed, and further complicated by decades of BS telling them that consumer spending is the key to a healthy economy. But the whole point of the Austrian perspective, at least in economics, is to stay positive as opposed to normative, and to point out that claim is actually false at worst, and at best does not communicate the full nature of the process.

As to the Keynesian assumption of whether or not a resource can be idle, even assuming it is possible for it to enter that state, bringing it out of idleness does just that; brings it out of idleness, and out of isolation. This to me goes to the heart of Keynesianism because you really have to have a compartmentalized, algebraic view of the economy as a set of isolated variables to even accept the idea that a resource can be isolated as such. Almost as if the 'idle' resources were the only variables on the left side of an equals sign, and somehow everything else could change in relation to them without they themselves also changing. Reality just does not work that way.

Re: The Broken Window and the Recession

RobinHood — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 01:03:39 GMT

Similarly, Bastiat's alleged broken windows fallacy involves simply assuming that there's no such thing as genuinely idle resources...

Genuinely idle resources. Let's put aside for the moment whether there is such a thing or not. We're going with Keynesian assumptions here.

...the viability of stimulus during a recession induced by nominal shocks,...

Remember, we are talking about two subjects here. One is Neo's and his sidekick Malachi's notion that actually nuking a city to devastation, or at least breaking widows by the hundreds of thousands, will end a recession. Even Yglesias didn't think, apparently, that he could defend that whopper. The BWF certainly reduces that argument to rubble. I mean, if he thought like Neo, he should have run with it. It is a much closer parallel to Bastiat's tale. A refutation of it a la Neo and Malachi would have really hit Bastiat where it hurts, which is the point of his whole blog. He should have written, "Actually breaking those stupid windows, the very thing Bastiat warned us not to do, is a good thing during a recession induced by nominal shocks. Have at it, Neo and Malachi. Nuke the city to save the world." But he didn't, because it is the height of absurdity to think destroying resources increases their amount.

Then we have a different subject. Does the BWF show that so-called stimulus packages are doomed to failure, because the money has to be taken away from the private sector, just as the broken window has to be replaced from a scarce pool of resources?

Yglesias doesn't think so, because some recessions are caused by a nominal shock, supposedly. Nominal shock is the latest buzz word for the Fed not inflating as much as it did in the past. Now indeed, when you have a zombie-like business [=one that left to its own devices is unprofitable and doomed to bankruptcy] that relies on constant free money from the govt to exist, when that money is not forthcoming, it will die. If there are many businesses like that, and you stop their supply of free money, you will get a recession as they all go bankrupt. We all agree to that picture.

And we all agree that if the govt goes right ahead and stimulates the zombie, it will be able to keep on keeping on, waddling around in a phony semblance of life. True. [Some call this "ending the recession". Austrians call it postponing the inevitable, at the same time increasing the human suffering that will happen eventually.]

Now, does that zombie feed on the private sector? Is it crowding out and starving the viable businesses? Of course it is. Does Mr Yglesias concede that the broken wondow fallacy is a vibrant intuitive depiction of the zombie feeding on the living? Yes, he explicitly does. So what's not to like?

What's not to like, say Mr Yglesias, is that the Keynesians and the monetarists have "points" that somehow prove Bastiat wrong. He does not mention what those points are, oddly enough. We are to take it on faith. Trust me, Bastiat is wrong. Nothing to see here.

In a run on sentence, Yglesias adds that "it involves assuming that no such recessions can occur even though they plainly do."

No. You weren't paying attention, Mr Yglesias. We agree that nominal supply shocks can bring on a recession. We are talking about possible cures for the recession. And the BWF shows quite clearly that they are ineffective.

The rest of his little rant has no new ideas.

Now some may argue that there is no crowding out, because the money was buried deep underground in the vaults of the wealthy, and would never have been used had not the govt taken it away from idle hands and spent it. Taking it away from the rich is not like breaking a window at all, because those silly rich are just letting that money go to waste, sitting there idly underground when we need it so badly to be spent. The rich don't need that money. They were not going to spend it anyway. We, the people, do need that money to save the economy, and so no windows are broken when we pass it from the lazy hands of the rich to the hungry hands of the economy.

Yes, that's a nice fairy tale. Trouble is, there is no hoarded money, as Hazlitt has proven about the Great Depression. Certainly it is true nowadays, with the debt in the private and public sector higher than it has ever been. And those businesses with trillions of dollars in their vaults owe three dollars for every one that they have in the safe.

Can the broken window fallacy prove there is no hoarded money? No, just as it cannot prove that bananas grow in South America. The BWF is not about empirical real world facts. That is not what the BWF is about. After we settle the realities of the situation, that there is no hoarding, then the BWF shows, as Mr Yglesias admits freely, that stimulus is a recipe for disaster.

Now, even under conditions of hoarding, stimulus is unnecessary, as argued by Rothbard. The existing supply of money circulating, by the laws of supply and demand, will increase in purchasing power. Any non zombie companies will thrive in real terms, if they lower prices enough to draw in customers.

In addition, if hoarding ever does happen, it will happen for a reason. It will be peoples way of saying, "We don't want to buy what you have to offer. Make something different. Change what is being produced to something we want. Change investment opportunities to more attractive ones." In other words, the market is speaking. "You have created a zombie economy", it is telling us. Stimulus is trying to forcefully shut up the market and force to take what is being offered, no matter how bad.

And that, too, is a BWF happening before our eyes. although unseen. The possible different outputs of the economy, the ones people actually want, are being "destroyed" in the sense of the means of making them being destroyed to keep alive the current unwanted zombie economy.

Re: The Broken Window and the Recession

Jon Irenicus — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 22:36:41 GMT

He seems to think throwing the words "nominal shock" about changes something.

Re: The Broken Window and the Recession

xahrx — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 17:40:17 GMT

Similarly, Bastiat's alleged broken windows fallacy involves simply assuming that there's no such thing as genuinely idle resources or an "output gap." In that context, yes, it's a vibrant intuitive depiction of crowding out. But this doesn't counter any Keynesian or monetarist points about the viability of stimulus during a recession induced by nominal shocks, it involves assuming that no such recessions can occur even though they plainly do. In defense of Bastiat, at the time he was writing the modern industrial business cycle was a very new thing..[b]ut that's no excuse for people sitting around in 2012 to be pounding the table with an old book that's non-responsive to modern issues professing to be baffled why people don't find it more persuasive.

Actually this point has been dealt with several times here. The source of the recession doesn't matter; the fact that there is no such thing as an 'idle' resource is what matters. And, stimmulating the use of so called idle resources to some end by definition means it is not available for other ends. And again, as has been stated earlier, unless you can somehow guarantee that the use of the resource and all the other resources it will interact with and affect will somehow not affect other resources and their availability (which it clearly will do...), and people's decisions about what other resources to use and in pursuit of what ends (which it clearly will do...), and that somehow the government will know the precise time and place to make the resource available for entrepreneurs to pull it back into private use (which it clearly can't do...), then the BWF applies. In order for it not to apply, so called idle resources would not only have to be perfectly isolated from everything else when employed by the government, the market would still have to be somehow aware of their existence and value to know when to pull them out of 'idleness'. To that point, no resource is ever idle, because even if it's not being put to immediate and obvious use by someone it still serves as a point of influence in people's judgements concerning the resources that are currently being employed. Nothing is ever 'idle', nothing is ever 'fully employed.' So, when you attempt to bring 'idle' resources back into use, you break windows. What you're destroying is the information and eventual production their very availability would generate and make possible.

Re: The Broken Window and the Recession

DD5 — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:04:14 GMT

Student:
He's shown he actually *understands* Keynesian economics, which should be step 1 for anyone that hopes to critique it.......

yes... it (bwf) certainly doesn't counter the points about a recession, that's when accoring to Keynesians, supply no longer creates demand, but government spending as such or pieces of green paper does.

So here, I concede the point - The Broken Widnow Fallacy is no fallacy at all to all those people, and also to all those 5 and 6 yr old grade schol children who think food just comes from the supermarket and that there must be something intrinsically valuable about the bills in Mommy's wallet.

Re: The Broken Window and the Recession

Student — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 13:22:30 GMT

I was reading a recent back and forth on Bryan Caplan's blog on Bastiat's essay that reminded me of this thread. Here is Matt Yglesias's contribution to that coversation (he's Slate's economics writer/blogger). I particuarly like this bit on why he is not impressed by people using the broken window fallacy to critique fiscal stimulus. Suprise, suprise. Neodoxy foresaw every single one of Matt's points. Considering Matt just posted this over the weekend, could it be he was reading this very thread!??!?!?! .... No.

But Neo deserves props anyways. He's shown he actually *understands* Keynesian economics, which should be step 1 for anyone that hopes to critique it.

Similarly, Bastiat's alleged broken windows fallacy involves simply assuming that there's no such thing as genuinely idle resources or an "output gap." In that context, yes, it's a vibrant intuitive depiction of crowding out. But this doesn't counter any Keynesian or monetarist points about the viability of stimulus during a recession induced by nominal shocks, it involves assuming that no such recessions can occur even though they plainly do. In defense of Bastiat, at the time he was writing the modern industrial business cycle was a very new thing..[b]ut that's no excuse for people sitting around in 2012 to be pounding the table with an old book that's non-responsive to modern issues professing to be baffled why people don't find it more persuasive.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/08/18/why_i_don_t_love_frederic_bastiat.html

PS* Haters gonna hate.

Re: The Broken Window and the Recession

xahrx — Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:59:04 GMT

1. Here is the context in which this thread was intended: N00b becomes an Austrian because he saw a few videos online. Austrian n00b then watches a few more videos and reads Economics in One Lesson, and so he assumes that he knows everything to know about economics and that Keynesians are dumb because of the BWF. This is a CLASSIC argument against Keynesianism. However, whether or not our champion actually understands Keynesianism, he will go ahead and use the BWF to criticize the economic ideology. If Austrian n00b argues this against a Keynesianism, and doesn't understand what they think or why Keynesianism is actually wrong, then he's gonna get smacked down. The point of this thread was severalfold: To intercept Austrian n00b before he did got in this argument, hopefully encourage Austrian n00b and maybe even some more experienced people who didn't delve too far into the Keynesian dogma to shape up, both to further understand the economic context of our time and economic reasoning skills, as well as increasing their understanding of ABCT. This thread was also aimed at spawning some interesting, non-argumentative debate concerning something which it obviously failed at doing, whoever is to blame.

This is all understood, and as I said I find it pointless. If N00b makes that argument and a Keynesian dazzles him with jargon, so be it. I have no issue with people learning more about all schools of thought. I have issue with the whole idea of arguing with people 'on their own terms,' or trying to prove them wrong in a context they dictate, which is well nigh impossible for the various reasons I've stated. I completely disagree that there is anything productive to be gained by granting things that are false as true 'for purposes of argument,' gotlucky's Reductio Absurdum point not withstanding.

2. Therefore this thread, as I've said above, was never meant for you and several others who posted towards the end because you genuinely know what you're talking about, this is why in large part I never dealt with what you wrote except insofar as pointing out why it would be pointless if we assume the Keynesian assumptions, BECAUSE I AGREE WITH YOU. As I've said again and again you did exactly what I think people should do, which is attack, as you put it "this whole Keynesian thing" and prove why it is wrong through a real understanding of both schools of economics. If you assume that the Keynesian assumptions were right you would be wrong then the BWF wouldn't apply, the purpose of this is exactly to show that the attack must be on the assumptions themselves, not by stating the BWF and then patting yourself on the back. Because of this we were never "arguing" with one another, we were arguing past one another because I was never trying to argue against what you were arguing.

So, the Broken Window Fallacy is a perfect tool for showing how wrong Keynesian assumptions are, and for that very reason N00b shouldn't use it to show how wrong Keynesian assumptions are.

3. I never believed that I discovered a fancy new toy on the economic toybox. That's about all I have to say about that. I thought I was making an insight that was useful to make, and it's hard not to sound pretentious when people are both attacking you, not understanding you, and showing no attempt to rectify their understanding. In the end it doesn't actually matter what I sound like, or the fact that you just sound mad and arrogant, like a kid who thinks he's the biggest badass in the playground and gets mad when anyone else doesn't acknowledge this.

I could care less whether you acknowledge my existence at all. You made a point in a poorly worded first, and subsequent posts, which upon examination doesn't hold much weight or value in my opinion. Should someone respond in a similar vein to something I've written, I wouldn't get all butt hurt about it. I'd examine my point and see if they were right. This was your first point:

In short the broken window fallacy and the usual explanation of it does not, in and of itself, refute the Keynesian paradigm.

People, myself included, have repeatedly shown how wrong this is. Here's another quote:

I want to make it very clear I'm not arguing for Keynesianism, merely the irrelevance of the fallacy in response to Keynesianism.

And this has also been shown to be wrong several times over. In as much as full employment doesn't matter, in as much as 'idle' is a ridiculous term to apply to any resource, in as much as the BWF as an analogy covers a hell of a lot more than seen and unseen costs, and in as much as 'sticky prices' don't matter either.

It seems to me that people get your point, and think you're dead wrong. In fact this whole thread is a demonstration of how wrong you were, because every single Keynesianesque objection or exception you raised was dealt with specifically within the context of the BWF. Which kind of proves through demonstration its utility in refuting the Keynesian paradigm.

As for Malachi:

I hesitate to ask...how is it like this? It seems kind of like prohibiting jet skis in a swimming race "even though jetskis are demonstrably faster." you say theres no point to seeing who is the faster swimmer...then take your jetski and get out of the pool, dude.

Because setting rules to a fight which do nothing but arbitrarily stop you from doing what you can to win is what's being suggested here. A person riding a jetski would not by definition be swimming, such a rule would make sense. But what we're talking about here is more akin to a person calling a swimming race and then demanding everyone else bind their feet.

You have "nothing better to do" than something that has no point? Your life sounds miserable.

No, it means I have free time on my hands and this amuses me enough to stay involved to a certain extent.

Re: The Broken Window and the Recession

Malachi — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:30:06 GMT

Nope, it's stupid specifically because it's stupid to cede the argument before making it

thats not what happened here so irrelevant

there's no rational reason to prove someone wrong on point C when it is conditional on their premises A and B, which are demonstrably false.

yes, there is a point. You dont have to like it, you arent the dictator of ends.

It's like people who bitch about 'rules' to fighting. My uncle taught me the rules of fighting. He challenged me to a fight, and when we were walking out to the yard, kicked me in the balls.

I hesitate to ask...how is it like this? It seems kind of like prohibiting jet skis in a swimming race "even though jetskis are demonstrably faster." you say theres no point to seeing who is the faster swimmer...then take your jetski and get out of the pool, dude.

Ah!, again leaving out the relevant part where I mentioned they'd just use logical BS to spackle over the crack in their argument. I guess I should have added "Or leave out critical points while nitpicking others and/or taking them out of context,

that part isnt relevant.

You're asking people to prove a building is unsuitable while also asking them to ignore the biggest flaw, which is the foundation is cracked, mouldy, and crumbling.

yes, I am. This is because there is this crazy class of engineers I want to reach, who deny the necessity of sound foundations in construction and I want to convert them before the building collapses by demonstrating that even if a foundation isnt necessary, the walls wont hold up either.

And if you're not allowed to point that out, what's the point of the argument?

youre repeating questions that have already been answered. The point is to improve the quality of discourse among austrians.

Why are two false premises acceptable, why not three, or four, or ten, or fifteen hundred twelve?

probably because those are the terms established for the discussion.

There's your BS spackle, and by accepting things as true which are not, you just gave the other person a limitless supply with which to fill in any holes you may actually find.

non sequitur

The only way they will not simply invent more BS to do that is if you manage to target a sacred cow of theirs of some kind, but then again, that's exactly what you're forbidding by asking people to assume as true the argument's most critical flaws.

this is called "grasping at straws." so youre telling me that people spackle over inconsistencies with irrational bs UNLESS you challenge one of their "sacred cows," in which case they suddenly start thinking rationally? You have lost your mind.

That's exactly the issue at hand.

this mistake of yours is why we are having this ridiculous meta-discussion. That IS NOT the issue at hand.

See above. In any event the separation of the two is a false dicotomy. A logically sound argument that's based on nonsense or false premises is still BS in the end. It's just BS in a very well constructed box. Same stink.

you have much to learn about rational discourse. A poorly constructed (that is to say "false") syllogism is in a different category than correct reasoning from incorrect premises. Reasoning from premises that have been chosen for reasons other than their truth-value has utility.

Actually the correct analogy would be more akin to informing them that using an overly complex periodization scheme with insufficient weights is stupid, and that likewise that simply lifting as heavily as possible with poor form and no weight or volume progression over time is also stupid.

you missed the point, oh well.

practicing arguing with Keynesians while explicitly igoring fallacious arguments they make is kind of pointless.

actually the point would be so that you could focus on other fallacious arguments that they are making, because that could help us to learn better rhetoric/argumentation. Youre saying its "pointless" in direct contravention of people asserting the actual point. No doi, values are subjective.

Nothing better to do right now. All my work for the day is done until a few appointments later, and all my other message boards are dead right now.

You have "nothing better to do" than something that has no point? Your life sounds miserable

Re: The Broken Window and the Recession

Neodoxy — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 17:27:56 GMT

I intend this to be the last post I make on this thread. It's becoming aggravating and pointless beyond any end.

@Malachi

You got it exactly right in your first response to Xarxh.

@Gotlucky

I am not employing either of these tactics, although they are both theoretically effective, and that may well be the outcome of what has been said here. Indeed, if anything I was attempting to show just because of the intuitive reaction of someone "broken window bad", that this does not make it bad, it is necessarily the loss in utility by the owner of the broken window and the alternatives which everyone forgoes in the situation. If these are not present then the broken window, sheer spending, can theoretically create growth. Since these are assumptions that Kenyesians work under, arguing the BWF with them during recessions is pointless since under their model IT DOESN'T WORK. You must attack the model itself, for while you could show to someone working under and Austrian model that the notion is false, the same does not apply to someone working under a Keynesian one. It's like arguing in favor of Catholic dogma surrounding the Trinity with an athiest. There's a thing or two that has to be proven here first.

@Xarxh

Okay, please READ this. Please READ this all the way through if you want to show any evidence that you are capable of reading something and actually understanding it, that you actually care about understanding and not just asserting.

1. Here is the context in which this thread was intended: N00b becomes an Austrian because he saw a few videos online. Austrian n00b then watches a few more videos and reads Economics in One Lesson, and so he assumes that he knows everything to know about economics and that Keynesians are dumb because of the BWF. This is a CLASSIC argument against Keynesianism. However, whether or not our champion actually understands Keynesianism, he will go ahead and use the BWF to criticize the economic ideology. If Austrian n00b argues this against a Keynesianism, and doesn't understand what they think or why Keynesianism is actually wrong, then he's gonna get smacked down. The point of this thread was severalfold: To intercept Austrian n00b before he did got in this argument, hopefully encourage Austrian n00b and maybe even some more experienced people who didn't delve too far into the Keynesian dogma to shape up, both to further understand the economic context of our time and economic reasoning skills, as well as increasing their understanding of ABCT. This thread was also aimed at spawning some interesting, non-argumentative debate concerning something which it obviously failed at doing, whoever is to blame.

2. Therefore this thread, as I've said above, was never meant for you and several others who posted towards the end because you genuinely know what you're talking about, this is why in large part I never dealt with what you wrote except insofar as pointing out why it would be pointless if we assume the Keynesian assumptions, BECAUSE I AGREE WITH YOU. As I've said again and again you did exactly what I think people should do, which is attack, as you put it "this whole Keynesian thing" and prove why it is wrong through a real understanding of both schools of economics. If you assume that the Keynesian assumptions were right you would be wrong then the BWF wouldn't apply, the purpose of this is exactly to show that the attack must be on the assumptions themselves, not by stating the BWF and then patting yourself on the back. Because of this we were never "arguing" with one another, we were arguing past one another because I was never trying to argue against what you were arguing.

3. I never believed that I discovered a fancy new toy on the economic toybox. That's about all I have to say about that. I thought I was making an insight that was useful to make, and it's hard not to sound pretentious when people are both attacking you, not understanding you, and showing no attempt to rectify their understanding. In the end it doesn't actually matter what I sound like, or the fact that you just sound mad and arrogant, like a kid who thinks he's the biggest badass in the playground and gets mad when anyone else doesn't acknowledge this.

See, it's rather pointless to label and describe the attitude someone posting on the internet when you don't know them IRL and especially when I don't even believe we've even interacted in another thread. For what it's worth most people who know me say I'm a pretty good guy.

Re: The Broken Window and the Recession

xahrx — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 16:13:03 GMT

There is at least one benefit to assuming certain premises are true even when you know they are false. The reason to do this is to show that they lead to absurd conclusions. I haven't read this thread too closely, so I don't know for sure if this is what Neodoxy was trying to do, but it can be done with Keynesian economics. If we were to assume the truth of many or all of the premises of Keynesian economics, then we would have absurd conclusions such as the idea that the government can essentially create something out of nothing. Or that it is better to consume than to save.

I can see some potential value in this, but then that assumes the person you're arguing with is honest, or smart enough to notice what you did, or granting both of those, will care. Because if they're not, they'll simply dismiss your absurd conclusions as extremism or excluding the middle,or "not really what they said..." And I write this from experience, because I used to deal with it every day when I was training people who insisted that they were either eating more or less than their required maintenance calories but still not managing to gain or lose weight respectively. They would continually assert I was being too extreme or that I was somehow misconstruing what they were saying, even when several of them outright said calories in vs calories out "didn't apply" to them. Fact is, it applies to everyone. It's a physical law of the universe, not an option or something you can decide to not have to deal with. But this would never sway their belief that either a magical wizard or a spacetime rupture was hiding in their digestive tract, and either gobbling up or inserting excess calories to thwart their attempts to gain or lose weight. That they were counting wrong, and that there was a margin of error due to measuring inability/inaccuracies and that they were cutting too close, of course, never could be the case. Nope, it was simply that a law of physics which applies to every known system in the universe up to and including black holes was somehow not applicable to their bodies.

So showing someone the absurdity of their conclusions is only useful if they're honest, smart enough to spot the same absurdity you have, and not so personally invested in being right that they just won't give a shit. And most people tend to be honest only to the point it serves their interests, not all that smart, and very invested in being right even when they are demonstrably wrong. Another way to look at it is, do you think Neodoxy is the first guy to have this general idea? Do you think, if the majority of people out there that I presume 'we' are arguing with, were reasonable, rational, and logical, that Keyensianism would have ever gotten anywhere at all? And that we, if we were reasonable, rational, and logical, would still be arguing with them?

If I have a choice between eating a Granny Smith apple and a McIntosh apple, I am not choosing between life and death. Sure, by eating any apple I am eating, and eating is in opposition to starvation which eventually leads to death. But that is not the choice I am making. I am deciding between two apples, and my choice is based on the taste and consistency of the apples. If I take a life/death dichotomy, I cannot understand the choice in front of me. Claiming that the Granny Smith will lead to living instead of living is just simply useless. But if we take the Mises understanding of choice and action, we can learn and understand far more about the choice of which apple to eat. We end up with seeing that I am choosing the apple which tastes better (if that's my criterion).

So, a benefit of assuming a false premise can be that we can demonstrate how it does not enable us to accurately understand the world. Assuming a life/death dichotomy as the root of all choice, there are many actions and choices that quite simply cannot be explained. Forget ethics, we can't even understand why someone might choose one apple over another. So even without introducing Misean action as a superior premise, we can show that a Randian life/death dichotomy is insufficient for understanding the world around us.

Well, that would all depend on how you feel about apples. And I'm only half kidding. If you were to meet some of the people who go the cider mills in northern New Jersey, suggesting one variety of apple is better than another might indeed lead to a life and death situation. I'm no particular fan of Rand, her writing, or her philosophy, but I get your point. However I think this overlooks a key point in how people think, which is that few people observe the world first, and then and logically deduce their opinions on various subjects. They live in the world first, develop their opinions and positions on certain points over time and via subjective processes, and then spend more time looking for information to justify those views than to challenge them and see if they do indeed hold up to scrutiny.

As Rothbard once said, if you're going to argue economics, don't try and convert Paul Samuelson. Go for the graduate student or under grad. There's a chance of making a dent there. But once they've been processed and spit out, people tend to get invested. Which is another reason why I think it's counter productive to assume certain things to argue with people 'on their own terms.' Either they are or are not invested. If they are, arguing much of anything will be pointless except as a demonstration to the undecided who may be watching. If they aren't, arguing minutia when you could take out the whole foundation of their belief system is a lost opportunity. In both cases, you're better off kicking the whole belief system in the balls than just throwing a few respectful jabs.

And someone familiar enough with the BWF to apply it to Keyensian stimulus spending is very likely invested in one side or the other of that argument being right. So, why not kick their argument straight in the balls?

I think Neodoxy may have been trying to do either of these tactics, but I don't know for sure, as I found his OP confusing

He may have. I'll even assume he's a good guy and say that was likely it. But, his posts have the air about them of someone who thought he had a great point to make and didn't appreciate it when it popped and did fart circles around the room. We all have the occassional Eureka! moments that turn out to be nothing at all. Best to recognize them as just that, and move one.

Re: The Broken Window and the Recession

gotlucky — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 15:15:46 GMT

xahrx,

There is at least one benefit to assuming certain premises are true even when you know they are false. The reason to do this is to show that they lead to absurd conclusions. I haven't read this thread too closely, so I don't know for sure if this is what Neodoxy was trying to do, but it can be done with Keynesian economics. If we were to assume the truth of many or all of the premises of Keynesian economics, then we would have absurd conclusions such as the idea that the government can essentially create something out of nothing. Or that it is better to consume than to save.

The problem with this strategy, in my opinion, is that Keynesians don't consider these conclusions to be absurd. So while it may be effective with your average Joe who can understand the value of saving, it is not going to get anywhere with people who have convinced themselves of the opposite because of faulty premises. I think this strategy is a weak one in this regard. After all, if your opponent thinks his conclusions aren't absurd, then it's not very effective to call his conclusions absurd. There may be some people who can demonstrate the absurdity of Keynesian conclusions, and maybe they can get away with this tactic.

However, there is another benefit to assuming a faulty premise. The reason humans have any kind of science at all is so that we may understand the world around us. If our conclusions aren't helping us understand the world around us, then we need to look at our premises and reasoning in order to see where we went wrong. I don't want to hijack this thread into an Objectivism thread, but I think this is a great example of what I mean. Randian Objectivists seem to believe that life and death are the fundamental choices a human makes, and then they go ahead and try to base a system of ethics on this idea. The problem with trying to understand the world in terms of life and death is that there are a great many things in which this dichtomy doesn't explain anything.

If I have a choice between eating a Granny Smith apple and a McIntosh apple, I am not choosing between life and death. Sure, by eating any apple I am eating, and eating is in opposition to starvation which eventually leads to death. But that is not the choice I am making. I am deciding between two apples, and my choice is based on the taste and consistency of the apples. If I take a life/death dichotomy, I cannot understand the choice in front of me. Claiming that the Granny Smith will lead to living instead of living is just simply useless. But if we take the Mises understanding of choice and action, we can learn and understand far more about the choice of which apple to eat. We end up with seeing that I am choosing the apple which tastes better (if that's my criterion).

So, a benefit of assuming a false premise can be that we can demonstrate how it does not enable us to accurately understand the world. Assuming a life/death dichotomy as the root of all choice, there are many actions and choices that quite simply cannot be explained. Forget ethics, we can't even understand why someone might choose one apple over another. So even without introducing Misean action as a superior premise, we can show that a Randian life/death dichotomy is insufficient for understanding the world around us.

I think Neodoxy may have been trying to do either of these tactics, but I don't know for sure, as I found his OP confusing (even after the edit).

Re: The Broken Window and the Recession

xahrx — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:49:00 GMT

its not necessarily stupid. It might seem stupid if you dont understand the point.

Nope, it's stupid specifically because it's stupid to cede the argument before making it, and because there's no rational reason to prove someone wrong on point C when it is conditional on their premises A and B, which are demonstrably false. It's like people who bitch about 'rules' to fighting. My uncle taught me the rules of fighting. He challenged me to a fight, and when we were walking out to the yard, kicked me in the balls. You don't get to dictate rules to people who don't want to accept them and have no use for them. If you want to do that, go work for the government.

yes you can

Ah!, again leaving out the relevant part where I mentioned they'd just use logical BS to spackle over the crack in their argument. I guess I should have added "Or leave out critical points while nitpicking others and/or taking them out of context," so the irony could be thicker. You're asking people to prove a building is unsuitable while also asking them to ignore the biggest flaw, which is the foundation is cracked, mouldy, and crumbling. And we're supposed to limit ourselves to convincing people it's a bad structure by critiquing the window treatments.

demonstrably false, argumentation has a long history of persuasion.

True, but if you're persuading someone to believe something that is false, then somewhere in your argument is a false premise or a fallacious argument. And if you're not allowed to point that out, what's the point of the argument? Why are two false premises acceptable, why not three, or four, or ten, or fifteen hundred twelve? There's your BS spackle, and by accepting things as true which are not, you just gave the other person a limitless supply with which to fill in any holes you may actually find. The only way they will not simply invent more BS to do that is if you manage to target a sacred cow of theirs of some kind, but then again, that's exactly what you're forbidding by asking people to assume as true the argument's most critical flaws.

thats pretty much not analogous to the issue at hand.

That's exactly the issue at hand.

I think you dont understand the difference between fallacious reasoning, and sound reasoning from false axioms.

See above. In any event the separation of the two is a false dicotomy. A logically sound argument that's based on nonsense or false premises is still BS in the end. It's just BS in a very well constructed box. Same stink.

the point has already been explicitly stated ITT. Why dont you log off, go to the gym, and convince the people there who are trying to get stronger that "you would be a lot stronger if you didnt tire yourself out by slinging all those dipshit weights around."

Actually the correct analogy would be more akin to informing them that using an overly complex periodization scheme with insufficient weights is stupid, and that likewise that simply lifting as heavily as possible with poor form and no weight or volume progression over time is also stupid. Which would lead one to the truth which is that you get strong by training your neuromuscular system specifically for strength and you can't do that while ignoring a key factor in strength training. So you may lift light to practice form, but if you don't eventually put some weight on the bar, you're wasting your time. And even more to the point, pretending the gym doesn't exist won't get you any closer to your goal either. Likewise, practicing arguing with Keynesians while explicitly igoring fallacious arguments they make is kind of pointless.

then why are you jerkin it in this thread

Nothing better to do right now. All my work for the day is done until a few appointments later, and all my other message boards are dead right now.