Fail Quotes

[AnCap Dave]

And now a third person has joined this debate:

You can add "f*cking" between names if you want, that doesn't make your argument any more legitimate. Also, Keynesian sounds more creationist than Austrian does. Just replace "divine creator" with "government centrally planning" and they're pretty much the same. Oh, and nice Strawman on mises.org.

They don't say statistics and data collection are "irrelevant." They clearly state, and I quote:

For the economic historian in the Austrian tradition, the quality of economic data is of utmost importance, since false data or belief in inaccurate data can lead the economic historian to faulty interpretations of the past.

They're not saying that they think data collecting and statistics are irrelevant, but that statistics that are given tend to be inaccurate due to multiple reasons.

Oskar Morgenstern names several sources of error that influence the accuracy of economic observation. One is a lack of designed experiments. The observations are not produced by the user of an experiment, as in the natural sciences, but rather, statistics are simply a byproduct of business and government activities. There is a complete lack of incentive to provide accurate information for government statistics and economic researchers on the part of companies, because to do so would require a costly and burdensome process.

In addition to the lack of accurately designed collections of data, there exists a related problem, also absent in the physical sciences – namely, the possibility of hiding of information or outright lying.

Companies have strong incentives to hide information or lie in order to mislead their competitors about their competitive strategy or strength. Companies also have an incentive to lie to the tax authorities and to the government in general in order to seek subsidies or avoid taxation. Sometimes companies manipulate profits in order to pay out fewer dividends.

Likewise, governments themselves have an incentive to falsify statistics, thereby improving their economic record. Doing so improves the ruling party's chances of staying in power. Falsification of economic statistics can also improve the likelihood of receiving some kind of foreign aid or foreign recognition. A recent example involved the Greek government, whose officials falsified the Greek budget deficit in order to gain entrance into the European monetary union.

Another potential source of error consists in the inadequate training of those who observe economic data. Whereas in the physical sciences the observers are the scientists conducting the experiment, the observers of economic data are often not trained at all. A lack of training can lead to error in data collection. From instance, errors may stem from questionnaires. The conductor of the research, does not normally conduct all interviews. Instead, the interviews are likely conducted by different persons. As a result, the delivering of the questions, the setting up, the interpretation and the recording of the answers are additional sources of error. The errors in mass observation do not necessarily cancel each other out. Frequently, such errors are cumulative.

An additional potential source for errors is the lack of clear definitions or classifications. These problems apply, for instance, in the classification of goods, types of employment, or classification of companies within industries. Companies like General Electric operate in various industries, making it difficult to assign its revenues or profits to distinct industries.

That is entirely different than "LOLSTATISTICS WHO NEEDS 'EM!"

From a more recent mises.org article:

Aside from the conceptual questions, the mere measurement of personal income as currently defined poses nearly insurmountable difficulties. For example, among those in "poverty," illegal (hence unreported) incomes loom large — earnings from drug dealing, prostitution, gambling enterprises, and everyday theft. If the poor have only the income they report to the Internal Revenue Service or the Bureau of the Census, how do they come by the automobiles, televisions, jewelry, and other visible adornments of their homes and persons?

Of course, the poor are scarcely the only class concealing real income, whether honestly or illicitly acquired. The wealthy support an entire stratum of professional attendants — lawyers, accountants, financial gurus — whose sole mission in economic affairs is to remove income from the gaze of the tax collector. Small-business people notoriously accept payments "under the table," and hosts of carpenters, painters, electricians, plumbers, and gardeners, not to mention the nannies, earn income that is wholly or partly unreported.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from an argumentative point, this does nothing to answer Desty's objections that the Austrian thinking is simply an a priory form of thought, and in fact, it serves to strengthen it. If the Austrians' claim is true, that all economic data is fallacious, then there are no economic indicators that the Austrians use to determine or predict the state of the markets, and therefore must use some kind of prepositions concerning the market that are completely subjective. By extension, any Austrian economist that may have successfully predicted future market trends has done so due to pure statistical probability (or to use a more damning term, luck) by simply choosing the correct preposition, and not by means of the scientific method. For every 100 Austrian economists that predict the future, certainly at least 1 will be proven correct.

Personally, I do not think that this is the case, at least to my limited knowledge. There are some economic indicators that the Austrians do use, and I do think that they are more effective in predicting short term market events, due to the fact that they use the movement of goods and prices as their main indicators, while the Keynesians are better at predicting long term market trends, due to the fact that they observe political factors and production processes that ultimately shape the interaction between demand and supply.

Oh, so saying that because Paul Krugman states there is no evidence means there is no evidence isn't an appeal to authority fallacy?

Renown and good are not the same thing. Paul Krugman may be well known, but by no means is he a good economist. I already posted the video on Paul Krugman (your bit from Idiot Extraordinaire on Paul Krugman,) not sure if you watched it, but all points about him are made in that video.

Well, I do think that the guy who made the video was a little bit biased. First, the actual quote from the guy that Krugman quoted was in fact related to "what economic downturn". If Krugman really did take that out of context, then this guy certainly forgot to specifically point that out (but granted, he implied that there was more to the text than what Krugman pointed out). Second, I was left with the impression that Krugman stated the necessity of the housing bubble with a little bit of sarcasm, in his Dubya's  Double dip article.In a way, replacing one with another, as the only means to replace the Nasdaq bubble. He didn't state that this was the right way, or that it will be successful, just what needs to be done in order to counter the negative effects of a certain market event. 

But the bottom line is, I do agree that Krugman didn't predict a thing, or at least, predicted what most economists and more sophisticated domestic farm animals already knew. There was going to be a crash in the housing market, just like any bubble in the past.

Anyway, that's my humble opinion on the matter.

[Travis Retriever]

@D:  Is there a reason your entire post is in quotes?

[MrBogosity]

Good thing I keep the scripts of past podcasts:

Well, I do think that the guy who made the video was a little bit biased. First, the actual quote from the guy that Krugman quoted was in fact related to "what economic downturn". If Krugman really did take that out of context, then this guy certainly forgot to specifically point that out

Ahem: "Barro didn't ask where ANY market failure was; he asked what market failure could possibly result in government spending beign a free lunch. Krugman completely avoids that part of the question."

And before that point: "Barro asks the question, 'Where was the market failure that allowed the government to improve things just by borrowing money and giving it to people?'"

I quoted enough to make it clear: Barro was talking about a specific market failure that allows government to improve things by borrowing money, and Krugman ignored that last part and pretended that Barro was so ignorant he didn't notice the very housing crash he was writing about!

Sorry, but any way you slice it, that's WAY dishonest on the part of Krugman.

Second, I was left with the impression that Krugman stated the necessity of the housing bubble with a little bit of sarcasm, in his Dubya's  Double dip article.

Nope, no sarcasm at all: "To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble. Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses? And a sober look at recent data is not encouraging."

There is NO SARCASM WHATSOEVER here. Krugman is very clear on the necessity for a housing bubble, and his doubts were NOT about the bad effects of a housing bubble, but rather he was doubting whether Greenspan could successfully create one!

He didn't state that this was the right way,

YES HE DID.

or that it will be successful,

He doubted that Greenspan would be successful in creating one to begin with, but he was CLEAR that should a housing bubble be created so that people can "start spending a lot more."

[AnCap Dave]

@D:  Is there a reason your entire post is in quotes?

To separate what was said by me and what was said by others. The quotes within quotes within quotes is stuff that I put forth from Mises.org.

I didn't want to leave out what I put in comparison with what he put so it would be clear what exactly he is responding to.

[AnCap Dave]

Except the article didn't state that they don't use statistics, but that statistics handed out by companies and government are skewed to favor their position. That is a major difference. In the previous video I put above (the lecture on economic freedom) that guy uses plenty of statistics and data that was collected to put forth the notion that countries with more economic freedom are better off. You can even read their 2010 report on this here.

I do not have to point the irony that in the report in question, they use sources like the World bank, which in turn uses the same statistics that the Austrians are criticizing :rolleyes: Furthermore, since disproving most, if not all economic indicators, what economic indicators do the Austrians actually use, if we consider the article as a whole? What else is there, except a priori propositions? That seems to be the logical conclusion one arrives at, as they have disproved the very foundation of most, if not all economic indicators.

Actually, Keynesian philosophy is what gave us the tech bubble, the housing bubble, the current trillions of dollars of stimulus and high unemployment and cost of living rates.

There is a slight difference between predictions and methods, and some may argue that the policies, not the system itself that was at fault. But again, I was referring to predictions.

Ahem: "Barro didn't ask where ANY market failure was; he asked what market failure could possibly result in government spending being a free lunch. Krugman completely avoids that part of the question."

And before that point: "Barro asks the question, 'Where was the market failure that allowed the government to improve things just by borrowing money and giving it to people?'"

He quoted enough to make it clear: Barro was talking about a specific market failure that allows government to improve things by borrowing money, and Krugman ignored that last part and pretended that Barro was so ignorant he didn't notice the very housing crash he was writing about!

Sorry, but any way you slice it, that's WAY dishonest on the part of Krugman.

Actually, no. Krugman didn't quote Barro directly, he referenced Glasner's specific response, and in doing so quoted "where was the market failure" from Barro. This is Krugman's statment from the article:

""As Glasner says, there's something deeply weird about asking "where's the market failure?" in the face of massive unemployment, huge unused capacity, an economy producing less than it did three and a half years ago despite population growth and advancing technology. Of course there's some kind of market failure, which means that there's nothing at all odd about asserting that better policy can yield free lunches.""

This is Barro's actual statement:

""How can it be right?  Where was the market failure that allowed the government to improve things just by borrowing money and giving it to people?  Keynes in his "General Theory" (1936), was not so good at explaining why this worked, and subsequent generations of Keynesian economists (including my own youthful efforts) have not been more successful.""

To which Glasner responded : ""Nice rhetorical touch, that bit of faux self-deprecation, referring to his own fruitless youthful efforts.  But the real message is:  "I'm older and wiser now, so trust me, the multiplier is a scam.""

after which it was followed by the questionable issue. This guy clearly stated that Krugman didn't address the issue- but then again, he didn't have to. By extension, he clearly agreed entirely with Glasner- that is, that Barro's statement about the functionality of the Keynesian multiplier is a complete bull. The second part of Barro's statement was already retorted, and Krugman simply referenced the first.

At worst, you can accuse Krugman of bad writing. But his stance on the matter is clearly shown once by association, agreed with Glasner. Albeit insufficient (certainly due to the issue of the article being something else, and not that specific reference), but certainly not intellectually dishonest.

Nope, no sarcasm at all: "To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble. Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses? And a sober look at recent data is not encouraging."

There is NO SARCASM WHATSOEVER here. Krugman is very clear on the necessity for a housing bubble, and his doubts were NOT about the bad effects of a housing bubble, but rather he was doubting whether Greenspan could successfully create one!

Seriously? A guy mentions that one needs another bubble to replace a bubble that has already burst, and that isn't a grounds to assume that maybe he was referring to it with a dose of restraint? Furthermore, no, he didn't, he merely referenced what the Fed needed to do "to offset moribund business investment.". I assume that if businesses and people were spending more, as he asks "Who, exactly, is about to start spending a lot more?", then, by his own logic there is no need to create the housing bubble, as an only option, that may not even be able to come into fruition.

[MrBogosity]

Actually, there are a lot of indicators that Austrians use; just look at how they predicted the housing crisis. But even if they didn't, I'd say it was a lot better to use NO metrics than to use faulty ones that lead you to the wrong conclusions.

[MrBogosity]

Facebook FoF:

NOBODY WAS BULLYING THE WORLD WHEN OUR 2 WORLD TRADE CENTER BUILDINGS WERE DESTROYED BY ISLAMIC TERRORISTS. THEY DON'T NEED ANY EXCUSES AND YOU CAN STICK YOUR APOLOGIES WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE! IF YOU WANT TO GO AFTER ANYONE, WHY DON'T YOU GO AFTER THE HUNDREDS OF DICTATORS AROUND THE WORLD AND THE AFRICAN WARLORDS WHO KILL MILLIONS OF THEIR OWN PEOPLE ON A REGULAR BASIS??? THE U.S. ONLY TRIES TO RIGHT SOME WRONGS AND PROTECT AMERICAN CITIZENS AND OUR INTERESTS WHEN IT NEEDS TO BE. EXCEPT, OF COURSE, WHEN OBOZO INVADED LIBYA FOR NO GOOD REASON!!!

It was fail enough as it was, but that last sentence really pushed it WAY over the edge!

[AnCap Dave]

Facebook FoF:

It was fail enough as it was, but that last sentence really pushed it WAY over the edge!

Wow. It pretty much has everything needed for failure. Hypocrisy, incorrect information, and all caps.

[MrBogosity]

By the way, D, here's another Hayek quote (NOT a fail) you can use against your fail guy:

"I want to do this to avoid giving the impression that I generally reject the mathematical method in economics. I regard it in fact as the great advantage of the mathematical technique that it allows us to describe, by means of algebraic equations, the general character of a pattern even where we are ignorant of the numerical values which will determine its particular manifestation. We could scarcely have achieved that comprehensive picture of the mutual interdependencies of the different events in a market without this algebraic technique. It has led to the illusion, however, that we can use this technique for the determination and prediction of the numerical values of those magnitudes; and this has led to a vain search for quantitative or numerical constants. This happened in spite of the fact that the modern founders of mathematical economics had no such illusions." (The Pretence of Knowledge)

[AnCap Dave]

By the way, D, here's another Hayek quote (NOT a fail) you can use against your fail guy:

"I want to do this to avoid giving the impression that I generally reject the mathematical method in economics. I regard it in fact as the great advantage of the mathematical technique that it allows us to describe, by means of algebraic equations, the general character of a pattern even where we are ignorant of the numerical values which will determine its particular manifestation. We could scarcely have achieved that comprehensive picture of the mutual interdependencies of the different events in a market without this algebraic technique. It has led to the illusion, however, that we can use this technique for the determination and prediction of the numerical values of those magnitudes; and this has led to a vain search for quantitative or numerical constants. This happened in spite of the fact that the modern founders of mathematical economics had no such illusions." (The Pretence of Knowledge)

Posted it. Probably won't get a response, but let's wait and see.

I figure I may as well post this fail from last night in a debate I was in about health care.
This guy made a thread about how he found out recently that he now has cancer. A Canadian in the thread suggested that he comes to Canada because their health care is "free." I responded in kind by saying that chances are he'd be dead by the time he gets looked at. He responded with the following:

That is a real misconception D.

Its a rare occurrence for that to happen. As opposed to America where if you don't have the money or private health care that is also willing to pay, you're pretty much sentenced to death.

I was diagnosed with "condition"

I got treated in 6 months, the standard waiting time.

For him money is factor, so if he can get it done free the wait is well worth it.

I already responded to him with this:

Oh wow, that's like no time at all! Oh..wait.

That might be cool if you have the common cold, but serious treatments require far faster time than that. It is a known fact that many Canadians come to the United States to get their surgeries because Canadian hospitals cannot support them fast enough.

Skip to 5:32
[yt]SPwkwc9aE-M[/yt]

This woman had a blocked artery that prevented her from being able to digest food. She lost 50 pounds just from not being able to eat. She was literally starving to death! In order to save her life they took her to an American doctor where she could quickly be treated. The doctor told her that had she not been treated she would have only had weeks to live. The Canadian government called her surgery "elective."

6 months is standard? If that's the case, then your standard is horse shit.

Here is another video from the Cato Institute where Sally Pipes talks about Canada's health care system and how the waiting lines are screwing people over.
[yt]9EYmDnFrHCQ[/yt]

Got no response yet. Apparently some Canadians are so used to the lousy waiting times that 6 months seems quick to them.

[MrBogosity]

Sadly, Healey died before her lawsuit against the Canadian government could be heard: http://www.canadianmedicinenews.com/2008/05/bc-patient-cum-plaintiff-shirley-healey.html

[AnCap Dave]

Sadly, Healey died before her lawsuit against the Canadian government could be heard: http://www.canadianmedicinenews.com/2008/05/bc-patient-cum-plaintiff-shirley-healey.html

That really sucks, but it just goes to show what rationed health care does.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Works out pretty conveniently, the biggest critics of socialized healthcare tend to die, thus silencing their dissent.  Sick stuff...

[MrBogosity]

Someone threw this at me to show how stupid and ridiculous I was being for saying that inflation is much higher than our government calculates:

Has the BLS selected the methodological changes to the CPI over the last 30 years with the intent of lowering the reported rate of inflation?

No. The improvements chosen by the BLS that some critics construe to be a response to short term political pressure were, in fact, the result of analysis and recommendations made over a period of decades, and those changes are consistent with international standards for statistics. The methods continue to be reviewed by outside commissions and advisory panels, and they are widely used by statistical agencies of other nations.

Moreover, the sizes and effects of the changes implemented by the BLS are often over-estimated by critics. Some have argued that if the CPI were computed using the methods in place in the late 1970s, the index would now be growing at a rates as high as 11 or 12 percent per year. Those estimates are based on the belief that the use of a geometric mean index lowered the annual rate of change of the CPI by three percentage points per year, and a belief that other BLS changes, such as the use of hedonic models and rental equivalence, have lowered the growth rate of the CPI by four percentage points per year.

Neither belief is supported by evidence. BLS calculations have shown that the geometric mean formula has reduced the annual growth rate of the CPI by less than 0.3 percentage points. Hedonic quality adjustments for shelter regularly increase the rate of change of the CPI, and those for apparel have had both upward and downward impacts at different points in time and for different types of clothing. The BLS estimates that the overall impact of hedonic quality adjustments in use in other categories has been extremely small. Furthermore, if the CPI were using the pre-1983 asset-based method instead of rental equivalence to measure homeowner shelter cost it would yield a sharply lower current measure of shelter inflation, given that house prices are now declining in many parts of the country.

There should be some kind of contest here; okay, you get 5000 Interwebs* for every fallacy you can find in this!

(*Interwebs have no cash value and are not redeemable for anything.)

[AnCap Dave]

Well, didn't think I'd have to do this, but some fail quotes from none other than George Carlin:

History is not happenstance: it is conspiratorial. Carefully planned and executed by people in power.

Here's something that pisses me off. Retired people who don't want to pay local property taxes because they say it's not their grandchildren who go to the schools. Mean spirited retirees usually from out of state. Cheap, selfish, old Bush voters. The ones I read about were in Arizona. AARP members. They take a shit the size of a peanut and think it's an accomplishment. And it's not like these retirement people can't afford the tax money. Not all old people are as dependent on Social Security checks as they'd like you to think. Some of them get all kinds of checks. Social Security, the VA, private pensions, government pensions, they also have stock dividends, bank interests and whatever else they managed to squeeze out of the system. And still they begrudge their local property taxes simply because their own fucked up cross-eyed grandchildren aren't going to use the schools. Fuck 'em. I say pay your taxes and die like everyone else. I hope they choke on an early bird dinner.