Glenn Beck- Latest Example of Logic Challenged Arrogant Moron

[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

[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