Lerner's Law and winning vs losing

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Hygro, Jul 19, 2021.

  1. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    California
    Lerner's Law is that if you try to hide your ideas in the language of status quo or existing popular lies, you will fail.

    In Lerner's case, the example was balanced budgets and the national debt. During the brief, imperfect years of great progress, the mid 30s through 60s, economists who understood money basically split into three camps.

    The first was a Lerner camp: tell truth about what is money. This was the radical position.

    The second was the popular camp of the academy: believe the people are too dumb to know the truth, so pretend money is what the old conservatives say it is, but with careful management, we can sneak good policy through. This was the the taken approach. It failed the moment there was a crisis and the "old conservatives" changed their own language and focus.

    The third was the Milton Friedman camp: tell the truth about what is money but having a different political end goal, advocate for the policy positions of the side that doesn't know money or lies about it.


    The first camp was small in number. The second camp found it easier to be selected for positions of power by playing off existing beliefs and not doing the work to change existing beliefs by the selectors of power (the politicians elected by the public to match the public beliefs). It might take an administration or a generation, after all, to learn, and your career depends on your appointment right now.

    Naturally, by acquiesing to the old lies for short-term credibility, three easily explainable inflation shocks allowed camp #3 to accuse camp #2 of ineptness. Camp #2, in scrambling to figure out how to fit themselves into the New Lie, of course failed.

    As the public only saw the failure of camp #2 to explain anything (since they don't explain things honestly) they believed camp #3. Since camp #2 outweighed camp #1, were sort of the synthesis narratively of the two camps but closer to #3, and would stomp on camp #1 to gain credibility "we're not these crazy radicals (who provide us all our true knowledge)" the public COULD NOT go to camp #1.

    They went to camp #3, we got money printing for the rich and austerity for the rest of us.

    You even had two generations of economists who were so confused that they tried to reinvent the wheels by confusing basic economic accounting identities with economic decision making. No wonder the Republicans have been running circles around us.

    But if economists were brave and smart and playing for the long run, we'd have Gay Luxury Space Communism, the cool American Capitalism style of course and not the oppressive choice-less Soviet version.


    If you tell people dumbed down lies to hide truths, they will be dumber for it and you will be stuck. But because people aren't actually stupid, just tired, busy, and interested in other things, their intuition over time is telling them not to trust you anyway. So they don't even go along with your sleazy ways long enough for you to pull off the policies you are trying to sneak by them.
     
    innonimatu, Birdjaguar and Lexicus like this.
  2. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    26,129
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    explain this tho
     
    Birdjaguar likes this.
  3. Narz

    Narz keeping it real

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    28,340
    Location:
    St. Petersburg, Florida
    How do you explain the success of religion?
     
    Angst and Birdjaguar like this.
  4. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    California
    I kid you not, after the "collapse of Keynesianism", there were a few wave of hipster economists who were total frauds. My favorite is the "rational expectationalists" of the early 80s. In introductory macroeconomics you learn Keynesian accounting identities. These identities are slightly arbitrary in what goes where and what the names are, but they correctly sum to zero so they are sound.

    Naturally, we know through these identities, as well as by auditing the mechanisms of where money originates and where it goes, that when there's a public deficit, there is private savings (or imports... which is means foreign savings anyway so it's savings all the same). We know it is DOLLAR PER DOLLAR because that's just literal accounting identities. If I give you $5, your +5 is my -5 dollar per dollar. Science, b****

    So the rational expectationalists decided that since budgets HAVE to be balanced in the long run (article of faith), and people know that comes from their taxes, people will save their proportion of the deficit to pay future surplus generating taxes. To "prove" this, they found that there is high private savings when there are high deficits, and vice versa.

    Pardon my 2000s, but epic fail.

    First off, no one does this. Second, no one would know how to do this. I don't even know what my current taxes are. I just know I get back most of it and recently, much much more.

    But most important, third off, of course there is higher savings. The deficit by accounting definition created the savings. Anyone tight on their intermediate collegiate national basic-b****-curriculum macroeconomics can see this.




    These were Ph.Ds and of course their funding was secured by the Republicans while their actual policies were the criminal version of sound Keynesian expansion based on Friedman's deep understanding of Keynesian economics (and his total understanding of Abba Lerner's Functional Finance).


    That Paul Krugman is one of the good guys, and for 15 years, the best of the mainstream, should be setting off alarm bells for the economically literate worldwide.

    I would explain it using a different framework since there's no truth or science underpinning the religion in the same way. So for things scientific but also political, this thread is relevant.

    Other examples of camp#2 left-wing violations of Lerner's Law would be "we should legalize marijuana to tax it and then fund rehab instead of prison" instead of saying "marijuana is fine for individuals to decide and prison for drugs is a scam, not just a problem", or "there's arguments on both sides of the debate but we should reduce emissions just in case" instead of "the science is clear and we shall reduce emissions because of it".

    People already synthesize between sides when they are not invested in a debate. If you compromise going in and they don't, you lose. I know you have posted the same understanding for many years now.
     
    Lexicus likes this.
  5. Narz

    Narz keeping it real

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    28,340
    Location:
    St. Petersburg, Florida
    Lol rehab for marijuana, may as well have rehab for coffee drinkers next.

    I don't really get the premise of the thread tho. Trump won on pure lies, propaganda, exploiting people's fears. He was pretty unique in modern history in that he didn't even try, like at all, to appear credible, if he was contradicted he just said the other side was fake. If it weren't for corona he probably would've won again.

    It seems like more people are falling for lies, not less. As information (and misinformation) increases exponentially, deepfakes & whatnot become more realistic and trust in government, business & each other continues to decrease people will believe even more what makes them feel safe/in-control/etc.
     
  6. stinkubus

    stinkubus Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,613
    For most of human history compliance has not been optional. Even in the free societies one can still face a whole host of consequences for straying from the religion of their upbringing.
     
  7. Narz

    Narz keeping it real

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    28,340
    Location:
    St. Petersburg, Florida
    Compliance w social rules has never been optional and faced w obvious idiocy 75% of adults still fall in line (w children likely the numbers would be nearer to 100%)

    In the Asch conformity experiment most people would go along w very obviously wrong answers out of social pressure (and in that experiment people caved to social pressure from strangers who had no influence on their life who they would never see again).
     
  8. Lexicus

    Lexicus Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Messages:
    26,129
    Location:
    Sovereign State of the Have-Nots
    He didn't say rehab for marijuana
     
  9. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    California
    How is Trump an example of a democratic victory over the long term?

    He's an example of a short term victory using a non-democratic loophole.

    The point is that if you know the truth, and the truth is needed for your side, couching the truth in the lies of the other side (who are going to win on just practicing lies anyway), as well as couching the truth in the "middle's" synthesis between their narrative and yours, is going to lead you to total failure.

    If the public had been told from 1936 onward what they finally figured out about money, and the truth-telling side agreed to only tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, maybe it would have freaked some people out in the short run, but in the long run I wouldn't have to tell @Cutlass that sustained surpluses inherently lead to recession absent sufficient exports funded by foreign deficits, because he would have been taught that in the 80s, because we all would have been learning that since the 50s. And then we'd be united in the basis of our fiscal policy and the median family income in the United States would be like $500,000 in today's money.
    Well I did. As an example of camp #2's trying to fight illegal marijuana through the frame of camp #3. Those arguments have fallen completely flat. What worked is "well let's try medical first since we KNOW that's a good idea" in states where enough people smoked enough pot to know the lies were lies.
     
  10. Joij21

    Joij21 Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,268
    So what your trying to say is all three camps of economists since the thirties were trying to implement socialism in America?

    What if camp #2 and #3 were just the conservatives and your overthinking the whole situation into believing that they were secretly socialist?
     
  11. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    California
    What if you were an elephant ... ?
    What if the sky was orange ?

    Camp #1 was clearly a mixture of socialists and capitalists. Lord Keynes was stradling this camp and camp #2 but was definitely inspired to write his magnus opus in part because he was losing a great amount of personal money due to the Depression. Dick Cheney probably has the most famous quote for camp #1, but belongs to #3 overall.
    Camp #2 had way fewer socialists, maybe none.
    Milton Friedman is the embodiment of camp #3. He's so deep in it he nearly loops back to camp #1.

    Outside of these three camps are all the economists who don't understand money.

    As a whole, none of these camps were trying to implement socialism. So no, that was not what I was trying to say. But I am saying only camp #1 was publicly honest about what makes the correct budget that maximizes present and future wealth and prosperity, and financial health, of a nation. I am also saying that camp #2's fear that they would lose credibility by honesty threw camp 1 under the bus and ultimately themselves and the rest of us as well.


    I have another example:

    The CDC, in hoping to stave off a hospital mask shortage, issued false claims about the efficacy early on in the pandemic. This short term move tainted their credibility, for months the talking point to get people to resist masks was that the CDC doesn't even know. If we the people want to be stupid and wrong, that's our call. When our authorities try to game us, it makes us wonder, how else are they lying and gaming us? Are the authorities willing to sacrifice me for someone else they deem worthier?
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2021
    innonimatu likes this.
  12. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy The long wait

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    20,836
    If you want to understand why you're hated by so many bad people, just go watch The American Experience, Ruby Ridge, accessible on YouTube right now. It's not like they're a unique story instead of a famous one.

    You can take offense or glee in Hygro's rhetorical attacks on the other, but his point about liars being useless and evil is true. May they burn in Hell.
     
  13. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    California
    Only you could get me to watch an hourlong PBS show, Farm Boy :hammer:
     
  14. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy The long wait

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    20,836
    Was it an hour? Jeez.

    I do like PBS tho. Window To The World!

    :love: Hygs.
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2021
    Hygro and EgonSpengler like this.
  15. Joij21

    Joij21 Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,268
    Then why would you even hope for camp #1 to even give you socialism? Just sounds like wishful thinking to me.
     
  16. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    California
    I'm not wishing for socialism.

    I am wishing for good fiscal policy and lamenting the 40 year era of the Reaganomic coup that may or may not have ended with covid.
     
    El_Machinae likes this.
  17. Joij21

    Joij21 Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,268
    Good luck with that. It's not the economists who have the power, but the politicians. Politicians who are all self interested careerists who take money from corporations who very much enjoy the current status quo.

    The real discussion should be on how to get less corrupt officials in office, and how to separate the corporate machine from interference in Washington.

    Everyone seems to freak out when Russia interferes in our elections, but when corporations do it no one cares!

    And on the presumed assumption that these economists advise the politicians to a better job creating policy, well guess what? Many of these economists operate from think tanks that are directly funded by the same corporations which pay the politicians.
     
    Narz likes this.
  18. Narz

    Narz keeping it real

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2002
    Messages:
    28,340
    Location:
    St. Petersburg, Florida
    Four years of power is a long time.

    Those who won now are also utterly corrupt and dishonest.

    President is a drug warrior. VP is someone vastly undesired and unpopular (polling extremely low before she dropped out) who was put into the VP slot mostly to add a little off white to the white house (form over function, pretty much the antithesis of truth)

    I don't see logic and truth at play in the upper ecolons of power, mostly just illusion and play on people's emotions (like in advertising)

    Coca-cola selling "happiness" has led to their total failure?

    Your worldview confuses me. It seems more accurate to say dishonesty combined w exploiting human weakness leads to the most profit (junk food sales, credit card debt, selling people bs in general)

    Quite the hypothetical. Also kinda disproves your point no? Assuming this was true then by "truth telling" TPTB would've diffused their wealth instead of concentrating it in their own hands.
     
  19. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    California
    Narz, think this through. P
    Right. So when one side is professional fraudster economists from think tanks, and the other side is trying to hide the truth into the narratives of the fraudsters, the public who will only entertain two big sides of any debate is going to synthesize their best guess at truth. And that same public votes for the politicians. And they will select the wrong politicians because they have been doubly lied to.

    So in order to tip the balance toward the truth, and the good, we need to bravely tell the truth. It's quite simple. Then people will, in time, figure it out. Instead, they gain distrust and juggle loose narratives that collapse to the easiest arguments and mantras.

    How is four years a long time when this thread is on the timescale of two eras, that combined lasted 85 years? 16 years of Clinton and Obama didn't end the Reaganist era of government. This is way bigger. This is about multigenerational myths and biases. The transition between the old era and the maybe-current era was 10 years with 3 different presidents!

    The populace votes and that's who we have. There are anti-democratic loopholes but they are the exception to our vote = our governance. You are saying "it's all forgone, therefore, it can't fixed". But it was damn near working for 35 years. "We are all Keynesians now" Nixon said, as the era was coming to an end before the very easily, Keynesian-consistent stagflation occurred with the two temporary oil shocks of the 70s.

    But only if they spoke the truth. By assuming only they knew the truth about money, which couldn't be said aloud, they were also completely blindsided by the fact that Republicans . And high schoolers, going into economics in college, believed that the fuddy duddy old keynesians were bogus so they didn't learn their field! They looked to new narratives. But new narratives were wrong, simply because the old facts were true and leaving behind the old facts meant leaving behind the truth.

    So now you have The Winners, who say they're for austerity but are actually doing full MMT-style "deficits don't matter" money-printer-goes brrrrrrrr for the oligarchs, their wealthy neighbors, and no one else. And you have the Losers, hoping to be cool like the winners, throwing out everything in a panic and deciding because they have the title of "economist" they are entitled to feel their way towards brand new explanations of already known quantities. And their feelings were right back to "how can I make my story consistent with the existing lies" except they didn't know they were lies anymore. They weren't even camp #2. They were "the rest". Larry Summers and the trash economists.

    Of course the people are going to vote for the wrong person if one side hammers a lie home and the other side is always recouching some complicated "it's like what they say but if you carry the 1 and growth above deficits and tax the good times and spend the bad times and of course the debt matters so we're the good guys because we run smaller deficits" is a big confusing mess and sets off everyone's BS alarms.

    But the truth also sets off people's BS alarms because they've only heard the lies and the truth feels too good to be true. So instead of some short term capitulation to the lies, just tell the truth, over, and over, and over, and over and eventually we win.

    It's real simple. Obviously "the bad guys" will fight it. That's how they won in the first place, they fought team #2 and exploited team #2's greatest vulnerability, that team #2 violated Lerner's Law, used the language of the bad guys to sneak the truth through a web of lies and were caught sounding like idiots when they didn't have a clear explanation for a clear problem, because that clear explanation would
    a) drop all pretenses of their past lies
    b) require courage.
     
    innonimatu likes this.
  20. Joij21

    Joij21 Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2016
    Messages:
    1,268
    This second category that you describe simply does not exist. They are the same fraudsters as the first.

    It makes no sense whatever that there would be such thing as a truthful economist to begin with in the first place. The job of an economist is a sham job to begin with, more similar to wizardry then any natural science. An economist is a huckster by nature who tells people their opinion to manipulate markets for insider trading scenes at best to bootlicking corporations and politicians to receive sweet favors and money at worst.
     
    Narz likes this.

Share This Page