Nobody Could Have Predicted: Scott Walker Destroys The Wisconsin Economy Edition

16 thoughts on “Nobody Could Have Predicted: Scott Walker Destroys The Wisconsin Economy Edition”

1. Did the professor with the conflict of interest address what happened to the money that didn’t go to the government workers? Would there be a ripple effect over time for money not taken from taxpayers or borrowed from our kids and grandkids? Or is all government spending always good? Let’s give everyone a million $’s and we will really have a booming economy. Wait, a billion would be even better.

   1. Did the professor with the conflict of interest address what happened to the money that didn’t go to the government workers?

      I see we’ve moved on from the logical fallacy of Personal Incredulity to the fallacy of Ad Hominem!

      You attacked your opponent’s character or personal traits instead of engaging with their argument.

      Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes. The desired result of an ad hom attack is to undermine one’s opponent without actually having to engage with their argument or present a compelling argument of one’s own.

      Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn’t married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.

      Then there’s this:

      Would there be a ripple effect over time for money not taken from taxpayers or borrowed from our kids and grandkids?

      So you follow Ad Hominem with another conservative favorite, Appeal to Emotion!

      You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.

      Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more. It’s important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one’s position. Everyone, bar sociopaths, is affected by emotion, and so appeals to emotion are a very common and effective argument tactic, but they’re ultimately flawed, dishonest, and tend to make one’s opponents justifiably emotional.

      And then, to top it off, we get a straw man!

      Or is all government spending always good? Let’s give everyone a million $’s and we will really have a booming economy. Wait, a billion would be even better.

      The Straw Man is, without a doubt, the favorite and most often used conservative logical fallacy. It’s in virtually every utterance from the right wing media noise machine.

      You misrepresented someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.

      By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone’s argument, it’s much easier to present your own position as being reasonable or valid. This kind of dishonesty not only undermines rational discourse, it also harms one’s own position because it brings your credibility into question – if you’re willing to misrepresent your opponent’s argument in the negative, might you also be willing to exaggerate your own in the positive?

      Wow, three fallacies in one comment! Are you going for the record (currently held by Notalib who managed 8 logical fallacies in a single comment)?

      Nothing you wrote negates the accuracy of his prediction. Care to try again?

      “Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!”

2. Taunt all you want Phil but the conflict of interest is factual as is the fact that money borrowed is borrowed from someone to be paid back by someone and we are burdening our children with debt. If that makes you emotional perhaps it can help you recognize the damage your philosophy is inflicting upon the present and especially the future. The million and billion points were not meant to represent your actual point of view and hence are not straw man arguments. Rather a mere suggestion that there might be limits to the value of government spending. Since you now recognize the potential damage to government spending, would you mind offering a hint as to when we might reach the point of diminishing returns and or the start of real damage by overspending.

   1. And this just in (to reinforce my point!):

      Since mid-2010, state and local government cutbacks have been a drag on GDP growth. Last quarter, the federal government moved into austerity mode as well, and together, the government sectors sucked 0.6 percentage points off of growth (see figure for state and local drag).

      In a sane world for economic policy, we’d look at the very low interest rates on government borrowing, the persistently high jobless rate, the underlying slog we see in today’s GDP report, and the state and local fiscal drag, and we’d apply some serious fiscal stimulus in the form of help to the states, which must balance their budgets. But this is not the world we live in right now.

3. Taunt all you want Phil but the conflict of interest is factual as is the fact that money borrowed is borrowed from someone to be paid back by someone and we are burdening our children with debt.

   Or not…

   People think of debt’s role in the economy as if it were the same as what debt means for an individual: there’s a lot of money you have to pay to someone else. But that’s all wrong; the debt we create is basically money we owe to ourselves, and the burden it imposes does not involve a real transfer of resources.

   That’s not to say that high debt can’t cause problems — it certainly can. But these are problems of distribution and incentives, not the burden of debt as is commonly understood. And as Dean says, talking about leaving a burden to our children is especially nonsensical; what we are leaving behind is promises that some of our children will pay money to other children, which is a very different kettle of fish.

   You’ve fallen into the trap of thinking that public expenses are the same as private expenses (at the Federal, monetary sovereign level). They’re not.

   Now, at the state level, it’s a different situation. But at the Federal level, it’s not true. And as the Federal government uses transfers to support state economies (when they’re not run by morons who turn down the money), they, in effect, provide a safety net to state finances. But you wouldn’t understand that because you seem to think the public fisc is like your checkbook. That, sir, is a fundamental mistake.

   Unfortunately, politicians and news media with a political agenda have tapped into these negative emotions about debt to push their agenda to end the modern social support services that government provides. They have done it by drawing false parallels between households and the government. Politicians from both parties have spent most of this year (and last) agitated about government deficits and debt. Even President Obama has done this in his July 3 radio address. But the government is not like a household. There are many reasons why financially, governments are not like households. In this context, I am speaking solely of sovereign, currency-issuing governments with floating exchange rates. This means Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Italy and the other Eurozone countries are excluded. I’m talking about the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Japan, Australia, Brazil, and others. There are many reasons why governments are not like households ranging from tax powers vs. wages to unlimited life. But I want to emphasize one in particular: governments are the sole monopoly issuer of their money. Households cannot issue money, only governments can.

   So it would seem that most everything you think you know about economics is wrong.

   But if you’re willing to pay attention long enough, I can help steer you in the right direction.

4. @Denis: Just curious. What conflict of interest?

   1. Oh god, really? You want to open another can of bullshit? 🙂

   2. The professor is employed by the State of Wisconsin and perhaps has been impacted by Act 10 changes. Of course one could put animosity aside (if it exists in his case) and perhaps he has done so. But I am suspicious of these claims about the negative impact caused by government employees not spending in the community. The money they are not spending remains in the pocket of a taxpayer who will spend or invest it. To me it seems like a wash but I am sure Phil will explain away the obvious with a snappy graph or two.

5. The professor is employed by the State of Wisconsin and perhaps has been impacted by Act 10 changes.

   Once again… How does that make his prediction wrong?

   In a story that ran March 20, Deller estimated the state would lose more than 21,000 jobs as public agencies and workers were able to spend less in their communities. According to the most recent numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Wisconsin lost 23,900 jobs from March 2011 to March 2012.

   Oh right… It doesnt!

6. Whose surprised that it would destroy the economy? Not me. That was the plan! Ever since the Weinburger led Bush administration allowed the attack of 9/11 to get us into the war on terrorism and take over the oil fields of Iraq, the goal has been to decimate public control over government by trashing the economy. A.L.E.C is in line with the reasoning that all public power is to be divided and conquered. The prize is now world markets and our workers must be reduced to third world abeyance with absolutely NO bargaining power.

7. @Denis: But you didn’t answer the question. You claim the prof may have some animus. Ok. But that is certainly not conflict of interest. He has a right to speak.

8. @Phil: Couldn’t help myself. 🙂

9. Phil,

   There’s a kernel of validity in Denis’ retorts. His arguments may not be properly constructed, but a fallacious argument is one that lacks formality not one that presents a conclusion that is necessarily untrue. You’ve done well to point out how his reasoning is invalid, but you haven’t quite addressed his concerns. Might I suggest you try constructing a fallacious argument in an attempt to persuade? 🙂

   1. Bias or not, nothing Denis said makes the professor’s predictions any less prescient. Period.

      Once again, what bias invalidates this:

      In a story that ran March 20, Deller estimated the state would lose more than 21,000 jobs as public agencies and workers were able to spend less in their communities. According to the most recent numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Wisconsin lost 23,900 jobs from March 2011 to March 2012.

      He created a model which predicted what the job loss would be from Governor FAIL’s policies and his model was remarkably accurate. How does bias play into that at all?

10. I didn’t claim Denis’s conclusions were true. You are right. But the art of rhetoric isn’t the art of being right. It’s the art of persuasion. I facetiously suggested you try arguing incoherently if coherence doesn’t sway because Denis seems unconvinced by formal reasoning. 🙂

Comments are closed.