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.

[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

[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?

[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?

[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.