Glenn Beck- Latest Example of Logic Challenged Arrogant Moron

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

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

[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.

[West]

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