Glenn Beck- Latest Example of Logic Challenged Arrogant Moron

[David Sklansky]

First and foremost this is not a post about the subject of taxation. Please do not reply regarding that subject. This post is again about those 15% or so of the population who are incompetant in math and logic yet still have the audacity to think that their opinions on subjects that have a mathematical or logical component, can be highly trusted.

It doesn't matter if they happen to be right about a particular issue. If they are, it is either because they got lucky in their analysis or they came to their conclusion through some other means, usually observation, (and then try to find logical reasons to justify that usually correct conclusion). A recent example is Arnold Snyder's mainly correct tournament advice which he detracts from when he tries to explain why it works.

Glenn Beck showed that he was a member of this group when he aired a piece where he condescendingly "explained" why it is a good idea to lower taxes. Repeating the points made by George Bush and many others, he explained how putting more money in people's hands would help the econonomy. More specifically he claimed that tax rate decreases would help the economy to the point that total tax revenues would actually INCREASE. And again he makes this point with a "duh" implying that this should be obvious.

But wait. It is actual simple logic that this CAN'T be obvious. Do you see it? The argument has certain similarities to the refutation of Snyder's chip utility theory.

If cutting taxes by 20% will obviously increase total tax revenues, then why not, tack on a second decrease to raise revenues further? (Remember this is not a debate over whether that is a good thing.) And if that works, why not a third decrease?

Obviously this situation is not linear since revenue clearly must go down with very low or very high tax rates. There is a maximum point on the curve. And that maximum might very well occur at a tax rate below what we have now. But where that maximum is is surely not a simplistic question. If Beck happens to be right it doesn't change the fact that his analysis was flawed. An analysis he thought was obvious. Because he was to stupid to realize that his ineptidude in math and logic makes any of his opinions suspect.

[StregaChess]

[ QUOTE ]



Glenn Beck showed that he was a member of this group when he aired a piece where he condescendingly "explained" why it is a good idea to lower taxes. Repeating the points made by George Bush and many others, he explained how putting more money in people's hands would help the econonomy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not defending Beck's position as I've not seen the full details (nor do I know what the hell a "Glenn Beck" is, possily I live under a rock). However I have heard these statements before and I thought the logical runs something like this….

“The cut is in personal income tax and personal income tax is less than ½ of the total tax revenues. The additional spending power in personal income creates revenues in taxes on the business side.”

Again I’m not defending Beck’s tax position or taking tax stand at all… but from a logical point of view if the above was true it would be possible to cut taxes (personal) and increase revenues(total taxes). The larger the percentage of personal income tax to the total revenues the less likely this scenario would hold water.

[Phanekim]

Raising or Lowering of taxes depends on consumer spending. Usually if the economy is experiencing a recent downswing, it is encouraged to lower taxes to while consumer spending habits are still high. in short, this way, consumers still "pump" money into the economy.

However, after long periods of economic downswing, consumer spending will have adjusted and a lot more people are "hoarding" money. Lowering taxes will not do anything if conusumer spending is already low. Thats why higher taxes are required to "pump" money into the economy (keynesian).

Usually this is because spending habits adjust slower to the upswings and downswings of the economy.

This is just from taking a few economics classes and having an econ major as a roomie for a couple years. Anyways, thats the "jyst" of it.

[HeroInBlack]

Mr. Sklansky wasn't saying it wasn't possible to cut taxes and raise revenue. He said that it is incorrect to imply that every tax cut would increase government revenues.

[Silent A]

This is a common mantra from those on the laissez-faire right, paticularily those who are politically motivated (i.e. they don't care if they're right, they just want to win).

For the more honest ones out there who continue to say things like this, I can only guess that they have a near religious faith in the belief that we simply must be well past the peak.

I have never heard or seen a proper demonstration of where we are on the curve (I believe some guy has it named after him).

[David Sklansky]

Again this is not about taxes. It is about the idea that poeple who can't spot fallacious arguments CANNOT MAKE UP FOR THAT FLAW WITH EXTENSIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT. Whether that subject be taxes, God, poker tournaments, or how to run a no kill animal shelter. Period.

[disjunction]

LOL twoplustwo is way ahead of you on this subject. See quote below.

I looked up Glenn Beck, I don't see anything in his biography that validates your point. What gives him more training in this subject than you or I? Someone with a recent bachelors of economics, and mediocre logic ability, should not make this mistake. They will also be able to reason about economics problems better than a person well-versed in logic but not economics.

[ QUOTE ]

His point was that the statement:

cuts = more revenue

Can not be true in all cases, and it is illogical to say this, as you did. There must be a point, .0001%, at which cuts do not generate more revenue. There must be another point, 100%, at which cuts do generate more revenue. Without providing an analysis, it is impossible to determine on which side of the point we are on.

I strongly suspect that at the current levels, cuts generate less revenue in a vacuum, it just makes more sense than the lawyerly arguments on the other side.


[/ QUOTE ]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rue#Post7962074 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=politics&Number=7962074&S earchpage=1&Main=7951187&Words=tax+disjunction&top ic=&Search=true#Post7962074)

[StregaChess]

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Sklansky wasn't saying it wasn't possible to cut taxes and raise revenue. He said that it is incorrect to imply that every tax cut would increase government revenues.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that but is that what this Beck dude said? It seems we've got someone who's painting with a pretty wide brush.

[Carded]

Clearly, the argument put forth by Glenn is terrible when analyzed from a critical thinking standpoint. Missing the most critical part of determining where we are on the economic curve is unacceptable.

Then again, perhaps it was intended as persuasion rather than a logic argument. Glenn may be more effective in getting the common American to go with position by saying “duh” in so many words than presenting an intellectually pleasing argument to a select few (if he could).

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Sklansky wasn't saying it wasn't possible to cut taxes and raise revenue. He said that it is incorrect to imply that every tax cut would increase government revenues.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that but is that what this Beck dude said? It seems we've got someone who's painting with a pretty wide brush.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Beck was an economic theorist, maybe. But I think it's pretty safe to assume that when a politician or political commentator mentions that tax cuts help the economy - they're referring to the Reaganomic supply-side model.

But like DS mentioned just because something worked, doesn't mean it's based on logic. There could be other factors in play.

The other factors were the business tax cuts and incentives that led to a massive retooling of American industry, along with the jobs that came with it. Then there was implementation of computers and information processing that happened at the same time.

The demand-siders used a similiar erroneous thought process, culminating it the idea that "war was good for the economy."

I guess it all boils down to just because you flip the switch and the light comes on, it doesn't mean you know why it happened.

[madnak]

If he had said that lowering taxes might increase tax revenue, he would be correct.

But you're right. He's assuming a linear relationship while simultaneously assuming a nonlinear relationship. At the same time, this may have been more of a deception than a poor conclusion - his goal may not be to raise tax revenue at all, but rather to lower it.

[HighOctane]

I think David is getting exercised over nothing. Because taxes will never be lowered to a reasonable rate, the relevant range of potential cuts makes his statement true. I know David is not saying you can't get the right answer through bad reasoning, but I doubt Glenn Beck actually thinks if the tax rates were lowere to 0%, then the tax revenue would increase. The fact is it is faulty conventional wisdom that tax cuts decrease revenue and that is much more consequential because it is basically a lie considering the relevant range and the people pushing for it know damn well.

[Bigdaddydvo]

Sorry, David, I can't resist replying about the taxation part.

I think the theory Glen Beck mangled in his description is the Laffer Curve. It's a central tenet of supply side economics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

[RJT]

Daddio,

Aren't you on your way to South Bend yet?

RJT

[vulturesrow]

Whats really amazing is how many people completely missed the point David was trying to make. I'm hoping some of you did it deliberately just to tweak the tiger's tail. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

PS In my first econ course in my degree, there was a question about the Laffer curve one of our major tests. While we were reviewing the test after the fact, I pointed out that there was no actual right answer to the question since we werent provided a starting point on the curve, which was basically what my test answer said. Teacher gave me extra credit for being the only person to point this out, rather than blithely spewing out what they had memorized from the book about the Laffer curve. /brag

[andyfox]

What about the opposite, David? Do you think people who can spot fallacious arguments can make up for not having extensive knowledge of the subject they're considering?

[dvsfun1]

[ QUOTE ]
If Beck happens to be right it doesn't change the fact that his analysis was flawed. An analysis he thought was obvious. Because he was to stupid to realize that his ineptidude in math and logic makes any of his opinions suspect.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see anywhere in here that says that Glenn performed any analysis at all, flawed or not. He seems to be making a statement based on an observation of cause and effect (probably backed by the research of his staff), that he considered obvious, or at least wished to present in that manner.
None of which is evidence that he is either stupid or arrogant. In the vein of his tag line "the fusion of entertainment and enlightenment", he is simply doing his job; which is to present ideas in a fashion that will get people riled up and (hopefully) thinking.
And he succeeded, IMO.






There's this thing called a spellchecker, it's really cool.

[andyfox]

I think I've answered my own question and can use a poker analogy to illustrate.

Suppose I am up against a player who knows me very well, but who plays badly. By “plays badly,” we can assume he has trouble recognizing an illogical argument, or rather, that he has more trouble with it than I do. Now, I will likely beat him because his logic skills are inferior and his knowledge of how I play will not help him much.

So his knowledge cannot make up for his logic shortcomings.

Suppose, on the other hand, I am up against a player who doesn’t know me, but who plays very well. (We can use David for this example.) I will likely be outplayed because David’s logic skills are superior and translate into superior poker skills and his lack of knowledge of how I play will not hurt him much.

So it seems a person who has superior logic skills can indeed make up for lack of knowledge.

Having said this, though, one wonders if the greatest blunders are committed (or would have been committed) by those with logic deficiencies or those with knowledge deficiencies. The case of Von Neumann recommending bombing the Soviet Union comes immediately to mind.

[David Sklansky]

"What about the opposite, David? Do you think people who can spot fallacious arguments can make up for not having extensive knowledge of the subject they're considering?"

No. But they never claim to. They might say something like "if the chances of making a two point conversion are what you tell me then you should go fo it in this spot. But I'm taking your word for it as to what those chances are."

On the other hand how often do you hear knowledgeble nincompoops using the analgous caveat ("I have my facts right but I might not be putting them together properly") when they offer an opinion?

[West]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5DFJNVqKTY

[West]

Scroll towards the bottom of this blog post (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/11/prominent-right-wing-bolton-blogger.html#links) for more on the wisdom of Glenn Beck.

[Thremp]

David,

I love how you use logic to refute the facts. Put your straw men down.

[chabibi]

I suspect there are a lot of people here that don’t truly grasp the idea of marginally diminishing returns/utility, Which would explain why there are so many anarcho-capitalists here (I guess more so in politics).

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect there are a lot of people here that don’t truly grasp the idea of marginally diminishing returns/utility, Which would explain why there are so many anarcho-capitalists here (I guess more so in politics).

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you like to explain this a bit further?

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I suspect there are a lot of people here that don’t truly grasp the idea of marginally diminishing returns/utility, Which would explain why there are so many anarcho-capitalists here (I guess more so in politics).

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you like to explain this a bit further?

[/ QUOTE ]


He could try. But since the first snide coment was exactly backwards i wouldn't expect much out of the explaination.

NeBlis

[MoreGentilythanU]

One of the reasons I never wanted to study economics was because I was worried that even with approximations introduced into functions, theoretical models could still be way off due to hidden complexities.
Example:

suppose the amount of tax revenue (R) is given by some complex function of the tax rate (T) like So:

R= kT^2 +T/2Dsin(T) + c

where k,c,d are constants fitting experimental data to this equation.

Though I made up this equation and it is obviously not correct at all, there are tons of economics textbooks filled with equations like this that describe economic quantities like revenue and taxes.
The reason I distrust these models is that I think there is alot of "variance" in economic phenomena caused by political, social factors etc. Taxes could suddenly be effected by some new crazy factor like a war. Because of this and also because I distrust economists in general I think that it is a bogus field.
I'm interested if anyone else thinks that economic/mathematical theories are worth formulating and studying or not?

[Insp. Clue!So?]

Without addressing the underlying Snyder jab one way or the other...

Donald Schlessinger once publicly fell for what might be called a "sucker bet". Does it follow, and does it meet objective analysis, that Donald Schlessinger is a "logic-challenged arrogant moron?" Or is it possible that anyone can be lead astray by abstruse (or even mundane) subjects from time to time? If so then how do we explain his excellent blackjack book? Hundres of pages of getting it right by being lucky?

If I write how Issac Newton was best described as a logic-challenged arrogant moron on account of his laughable bible notions, I think I might get an objection or two...ya think?

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
First and foremost this is not a post about the subject of taxation. Please do not reply regarding that subject. This post is again about those 15% or so of the population who are incompetant in math and logic yet still have the audacity to think that their opinions on subjects that have a mathematical or logical component, can be highly trusted.

It doesn't matter if they happen to be right about a particular issue. If they are, it is either because they got lucky in their analysis or they came to their conclusion through some other means, usually observation, (and then try to find logical reasons to justify that usually correct conclusion). A recent example is Arnold Snyder's mainly correct tournament advice which he detracts from when he tries to explain why it works.

Glenn Beck showed that he was a member of this group when he aired a piece where he condescendingly "explained" why it is a good idea to lower taxes. Repeating the points made by George Bush and many others, he explained how putting more money in people's hands would help the econonomy. More specifically he claimed that tax rate decreases would help the economy to the point that total tax revenues would actually INCREASE. And again he makes this point with a "duh" implying that this should be obvious.

But wait. It is actual simple logic that this CAN'T be obvious. Do you see it? The argument has certain similarities to the refutation of Snyder's chip utility theory.

If cutting taxes by 20% will obviously increase total tax revenues, then why not, tack on a second decrease to raise revenues further? (Remember this is not a debate over whether that is a good thing.) And if that works, why not a third decrease?

Obviously this situation is not linear since revenue clearly must go down with very low or very high tax rates. There is a maximum point on the curve. And that maximum might very well occur at a tax rate below what we have now. But where that maximum is is surely not a simplistic question. If Beck happens to be right it doesn't change the fact that his analysis was flawed. An analysis he thought was obvious. Because he was to stupid to realize that his ineptidude in math and logic makes any of his opinions suspect.

[/ QUOTE ]


Man, Dave, you are really hung on this Snyder issue!!
Why?? You are my poker guru, and he is one of my blackjack gurus? Why fret over whatever you have been fretting over!? What does it matter? DS, we should begin a good, 2plus2 frontloading team. jk, i dont even know how to frontload! but i think mason wrote something about frontloading being the optimum strategy. dont remember the context. we could shuffle track, perhaps, instead, and use snyder's text as our guide! peace mr sklansky

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
Without addressing the underlying Snyder jab one way or the other...

Donald Schlessinger once publicly fell for what might be called a "sucker bet". Does it follow, and does it meet objective analysis, that Donald Schlessinger is a "logic-challenged arrogant moron?" Or is it possible that anyone can be lead astray by abstruse (or even mundane) subjects from time to time? If so then how do we explain his excellent blackjack book? Hundres of pages of getting it right by being lucky?

If I write how Issac Newton was best described as a logic-challenged arrogant moron on account of his laughable bible notions, I think I might get an objection or two...ya think?

[/ QUOTE ]

blackjack attack was only correct through some .00000000000000000001 to infinity squared out of one coincidence, just as every one of us, along with our world (and any other worlds that perhaps exist), came to be. schlesinger knows less about blackjack than i know about poker.

[siegfriedandroy]

sklansky used the word 'nincompoop'

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
schlesinger knows less about blackjack than i know about poker.

[/ QUOTE ]ROTFLMAO

I finally get to meet the person who knows everything about poker!

[David Sklansky]

"Donald Schlessinger once publicly fell for what might be called a "sucker bet". Does it follow, and does it meet objective analysis, that Donald Schlessinger is a "logic-challenged arrogant moron?""

Did he still fall for it after thinking about it for dozens of hours and being told by acknowledged experts he was wrong? And did he then go on to write up his faulty analysis?

[bearly]

sir david, on this one the opposition should be putting up the white flag..............b

[HeavilyArmed]

Glenn Beck has been heard to admit he's a clown. Really, he self-applies that exact term. I think he just might be correct. His heart is in the right place but that's about it.

The Laffer curve is conservative gospel, requires no explaination among the clique. It's just assumed to be true and most everyone also assumes that our current point on the curve is one where even lower tax rates generate greater revenue.

Together, those two points make your example poor.

[David Sklansky]

"Glenn Beck has been heard to admit he's a clown. Really, he self-applies that exact term. I think he just might be correct. His heart is in the right place but that's about it.

The Laffer curve is conservative gospel, requires no explaination among the clique. It's just assumed to be true and most everyone also assumes that our current point on the curve is one where even lower tax rates generate greater revenue.

Together, those two points make your example poor."

Incorrect. Because in the piece I was referring to, Glenn Beck did not have his clown hat on but rather had his teaching hat on. He was trying to be scholarly and logical and he was talking to the masses. He wasn't talking to people who were assuming we were on a certain point on the curve.