• Welcome to the Off-Topic/Schweb's Lounge

    In addition to the Mac-Forums Community Guidelines, there are a few things you should pay attention to while in The Lounge.

    Lounge Rules
    • If your post belongs in a different forum, please post it there.
    • While this area is for off-topic conversations, that doesn't mean that every conversation will be permitted. The moderators will, at their sole discretion, close or delete any threads which do not serve a beneficial purpose to the community.

    Understand that while The Lounge is here as a place to relax and discuss random topics, that doesn't mean we will allow any topic. Topics which are inflammatory, hurtful, or otherwise clash with our Mac-Forums Community Guidelines will be removed.

Do politicans pander to our irrational side?

Joined
Jan 5, 2007
Messages
1,480
Reaction score
124
Points
63
Location
Where the old Baker farm used to be.
Your Mac's Specs
Apple Black MacBook 2 GB RAM, 2.0 GHZ Intel Core 2 Duo Proecessor, 120 GB HD. 30 GB Black iPod Video
Link

There's an article similar to this in Reason Magazine this month, but they haven't posted it on their website yet, so this story will have to do. It is interesting how people "systematically favor irrational policies." The guy who wrote the book this article alludes to is an econ prof at George Mason university, and he says that the average voter has four biases that lead to irrational public policy decisions:

1.) An Anti-market bias: The average voter doesn't understand what supply and demand truly is, so they will support policies that interfere with the market.

2.) An Anti-foreign bias: The average voter believes that foreign trade hurts America, and will support tariffs and protectionism.

3.) A Make-work bias: The average voter believes that employment is more important than production.

4.) A Pessimistic bias: The average voter often believes the economy is doing worse than it really is.

It is some interesting food for thought, but let's keep the discussion civil.

EDIT: Just realized I misspelled politicians.
 
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
748
Reaction score
32
Points
28
Your Mac's Specs
2.16 Core 2 Duo, 160GB HD, 2gb RAM, Black Macbook | iPhone | OS X Leopard
I don't really understand what your asking but I will attempt to answer nonetheless.

Of course they pander to our irrational side. The real question is "what is irrational?". Republicans will tell you that reform and change is irrational while Dems will tell you the status quo is irrational.

I've taken economics courses before and full understand supply and demand. However, no country can go completely off of hte principle of economics. It would leave a lot of people jobless and hungry and a few elite oligarchies would dominate America. Personally, I believe this is close to happening already. I don't advocate strict protectionism but at some point a leader has to stop think about the elite and look down at what is happening to the people who voted for him. I am one of those people who think, no matter which way you want to spin it, it is ridiculous that children could ever be homeless or hungry in America.

So as far you question goes, and from the sense of things I'd say your a pretty staunch republican or libertarian, I'd every politician plays to irrationalities to some extent. But some of the things you consider irrational arent irrational to most people.

For instance, you state that employment is not as important as production. This is working off of that infamous "trickle-down" effect. All I say is, if you the man who loses his job and can't feed his family, are you going to give two craps about some stupid economic policy that says years from now, your loss of a job and profit of a company will ultimately help the poor? I doubt it.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
10,345
Reaction score
597
Points
113
Location
Margaritaville
Your Mac's Specs
3.4 Ghz i7 MacBook Pro (2015), iPad Pro (2014), iPhone Xs Max. Apple TV 4K
Individuals are smart, people are stupid.
 
OP
TheCustomer99
Joined
Jan 5, 2007
Messages
1,480
Reaction score
124
Points
63
Location
Where the old Baker farm used to be.
Your Mac's Specs
Apple Black MacBook 2 GB RAM, 2.0 GHZ Intel Core 2 Duo Proecessor, 120 GB HD. 30 GB Black iPod Video
I don't really understand what your asking but I will attempt to answer nonetheless.

Of course they pander to our irrational side. The real question is "what is irrational?". Republicans will tell you that reform and change is irrational while Dems will tell you the status quo is irrational.

Yes, but in order to understand what progress is, you have to know the methodology behind the status quo, and there really isn't much of an attempt by anyone to do so. So neither side gets it.

I've taken economics courses before and full understand supply and demand.

Looks like we have one thing in common.

However, no country can go completely off of hte principle of economics. It would leave a lot of people jobless and hungry and a few elite oligarchies would dominate America.

Question: Why don't economists say this?

Personally, I believe this is close to happening already. I don't advocate strict protectionism but at some point a leader has to stop think about the elite and look down at what is happening to the people who voted for him. I am one of those people who think, no matter which way you want to spin it, it is ridiculous that children could ever be homeless or hungry in America.

I don't think there is a single person on earth who thinks that it is good that people go homeless or hungry. The question is what can we do about it, and is there even a solution that won't do more harm than good?

So as far you question goes, and from the sense of things I'd say your a pretty staunch republican or libertarian

Libertarian. I'll call myself a republican when they find room for non-interventionists who support gay marriage, oppose the war in Iraq, are anti-death penalty, oppose the war on drugs, think that the Patriot Act is ridiculous, believe global warming, believe evolution, etc.

Besides, I wouldn't say that liberals only believe this (although they agree with more of it). If you listen to Sean Hannity, you'll hear him echo a lot of what is criticized by Caplan. I hear more conservatives say that we should "buy American" than I do liberals.

I'd every politician plays to irrationalities to some extent. But some of the things you consider irrational arent irrational to most people.

Well, that's kind of the point of the article I linked to.

For instance, you state that employment is not as important as production. This is working off of that infamous "trickle-down" effect. All I say is, if you the man who loses his job and can't feed his family, are you going to give two craps about some stupid economic policy that says years from now, your loss of a job and profit of a company will ultimately help the poor? I doubt it.

This goes along the lines of people who argue for the death penalty and say, "If someone in your family was killed, you'd think differently." Well, yeah, because I'd be blinded by anger.

With regards to your argument in particular, it isn't really "trickle down" economics. It's more of a basic economic principle. How many people get laid off and never find a job again? Does a business have an obligation to give people jobs that it doesn't think it needs? If a business gave jobs for the sake of jobs, would it be benevolence or waste?

I think the article itself makes the best argument:

The make-work bias is best illustrated by a story, perhaps apocryphal, of an economist who visits China under Mao Zedong. He sees hundreds of workers building a dam with shovels. He asks: “Why don't they use a mechanical digger?” “That would put people out of work,” replies the foreman. “Oh,” says the economist, “I thought you were making a dam. If it's jobs you want, take away their shovels and give them spoons.” For an individual, the make-work bias makes some sense. He prospers if he has a job, and may lose his health insurance if he is laid off. For the nation as a whole, however, what matters is not whether people have jobs, but how they do them. The more people produce, the greater the general prosperity. It helps, therefore, if people shift from less productive occupations to more productive ones. Economists, recalling that before the industrial revolution 95% of Americans were farmers, worry far less about downsizing than ordinary people do. Politicians, however, follow the lead of ordinary people. Hence, to take a more frivolous example, Oregon's ban on self-service petrol stations.

Finally, the public's pessimism is evident in its belief that most new jobs tend to be low-paying, that our children will be worse off than we are and that society is going to heck in a variety of ways. Economists, despite their dismal reputation, tend to be cheerier. Politicians have to strike a balance. They often find it useful to inflame public fears, but they have to sound confident that things will get better if they are elected.

We have a relatively low unemployment rate right now (4.6% according to the US DoL), and it isn't because people are getting laid off from their high paying jobs and being forced to work at Wal-Mart.
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
4,576
Reaction score
378
Points
83
Location
St. Somewhere
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Studio, M1 Max, 32 GB RAM, 2 TB SSD
I am very definitely a cynic, but my personal observation is that the average politician will pander to ANYTHING they think will get them votes. They are "vote w h o r e s". As a class, they are despicable. There are exceptions of course, but by and large, I find this to be true.

I am from Canada originally and I recall the Toronto Star newspaper running a front page editorial many years ago about the then current US presidential election entitled "Why Does Such High Office Attract Such Low Men?". The title was spot on. No intimation, by the way, that Canadian politicians are any better - it is just that this particular headline was about the US presidential election, thats all.
 
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
4,934
Reaction score
207
Points
63
Location
Anytown, USA
Your Mac's Specs
27" iMac 2.7GHz Core i5, iPhone 6, iPad Air 2, 4th gen Apple TV
I am very definitely a cynic, but my personal observation is that the average politician will pander to ANYTHING they think will get them votes. They are "vote w h o r e s". As a class, they are despicable. There are exceptions of course, but by and large, I find this to be true.

This is exactly what went through my head when I read the thread title! It's all about the votes: however you can get them.
 
Joined
Dec 1, 2006
Messages
109
Reaction score
14
Points
18
TC99 - that's an interesting list of four biases. I'd have to say that I agree to some extent that those four statements explain a lot. Voters will generally be happy when they get more than they pay for... or perceive that to be the case. Of course, not EVERYONE can get those unbalanced benefits so the politicians go mostly for the cheap votes.

Anytime I get in a personal (rather than web) discussion of politicians pandering for votes, I always ask the other person if they've read the U.S. Constitution lately. Generally, the answer is "no". I always urge them to do so and then get back to me to continue the discussion of pandering and the government's role in redistribution of wealth, dispensing of healthcare, rebuilding of home, etc.

I'm all in favor of charity and helping each other out. I'm not in favor of having a government in the middle passing out money to do their experiments in social engineering -- mostly to get re-elected.
 

eric


Retired Staff
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
8,704
Reaction score
447
Points
83
Location
twin cities, mn, usa
I'm all in favor of charity and helping each other out. I'm not in favor of having a government in the middle passing out money to do their experiments in social engineering -- mostly to get re-elected.

hmm... when most people won't even back off the gas a bit to let someone in from an on-ramp, i don't really trust the general public enough to use the extra cash they may have from cutting government programs to any sort of altruistic use. not to say the goverment does a great job either, but i think that point circles back to customer's original point. ;)
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
10,345
Reaction score
597
Points
113
Location
Margaritaville
Your Mac's Specs
3.4 Ghz i7 MacBook Pro (2015), iPad Pro (2014), iPhone Xs Max. Apple TV 4K
I'm all in favor of charity and helping each other out. I'm not in favor of having a government in the middle passing out money to do their experiments in social engineering -- mostly to get re-elected.


I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with that.
 
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
748
Reaction score
32
Points
28
Your Mac's Specs
2.16 Core 2 Duo, 160GB HD, 2gb RAM, Black Macbook | iPhone | OS X Leopard
Liberal philosophy- People need to help themselves and if they try and fail, we can help them get back on their feet

Conservative- People need to help themselves and if they try and fail, screw em.
 

eric


Retired Staff
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
8,704
Reaction score
447
Points
83
Location
twin cities, mn, usa
Liberal philosophy- People need to help themselves and if they try and fail, we can help them get back on their feet

Conservative- People need to help themselves and if they try and fail, screw em.

liberal and conservative, and more specifically, democrat and republican definitions have changed so much over the years that a statement like that is not only short sighted, it's as inflamatory as this sentence is a run-on.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
10,345
Reaction score
597
Points
113
Location
Margaritaville
Your Mac's Specs
3.4 Ghz i7 MacBook Pro (2015), iPad Pro (2014), iPhone Xs Max. Apple TV 4K
Liberal philosophy- People need to help themselves and if they try and fail, we can help them get back on their feet

Conservative- People need to help themselves and if they try and fail, screw em.

Liberal - Kill babies and save Criminals.

Conservative - Save babies and kill Criminals.

Now THAT'S inflammatory....

;)
 

eric


Retired Staff
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
8,704
Reaction score
447
Points
83
Location
twin cities, mn, usa
i don't see how. ;P
 
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
748
Reaction score
32
Points
28
Your Mac's Specs
2.16 Core 2 Duo, 160GB HD, 2gb RAM, Black Macbook | iPhone | OS X Leopard
I'm anti-abortion, so I;m not quite as an inflammatory liberal as you think. :)
 
OP
TheCustomer99
Joined
Jan 5, 2007
Messages
1,480
Reaction score
124
Points
63
Location
Where the old Baker farm used to be.
Your Mac's Specs
Apple Black MacBook 2 GB RAM, 2.0 GHZ Intel Core 2 Duo Proecessor, 120 GB HD. 30 GB Black iPod Video
Liberal philosophy- People need to help themselves and if they try and fail, we can help them get back on their feet

Conservative- People need to help themselves and if they try and fail, screw em.

A better definition of both ideologies:

Liberal: We want control of your boardroom.

Conservative: We want control of your bedroom.

Libertarian: Leave both alone.
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2006
Messages
4,576
Reaction score
378
Points
83
Location
St. Somewhere
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Studio, M1 Max, 32 GB RAM, 2 TB SSD
Liberal - Kill babies and save Criminals.

Conservative - Save babies and kill Criminals.

Now THAT'S inflammatory....

;)

NICE one baggss! :D
 
Joined
Dec 1, 2006
Messages
109
Reaction score
14
Points
18
Two quotes to think about. Both supposedly from Winston Churchill:

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
 
Joined
May 29, 2007
Messages
748
Reaction score
32
Points
28
Your Mac's Specs
2.16 Core 2 Duo, 160GB HD, 2gb RAM, Black Macbook | iPhone | OS X Leopard
Two quotes to think about. Both supposedly from Winston Churchill:

"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy."

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

I dont think anybody here is talking socialism.

I really dont like when people call me a socialist (not that papercut was calling me a socialist). I own stock and bonds. I watch the stock market. I work. Not stuff a socialist is into.
 
Joined
Dec 1, 2006
Messages
109
Reaction score
14
Points
18
You're correct, Shannonb, I didn't call ANYONE a socialist... but I think the quotes are worth considering. Everyone should take a look at how and why this country was founded. Consider how the size and impact of the Federal government has grown since the FDR years. From my perspective, we're voting ourselves right down the road to socialism and it's all because the politicians pander for votes (the original topic of this discussion anyway). Many of the successful politicians tell us how unfair the taxes are, how the "rich" are not earning their share and don't deserve to keep their wealth (envy), how the "rich" prevent others from being successful and keep people down (philosophy of failure), how the less-fortunate people should enable the government to play Robin Hood and seize the wealth of some groups to give to other groups.

Socialism??? There are many degrees of socialism in the world and, in my opinion, a lot of people are willing to vote us there.

BTW, the rallying cry of Karl Marx (famed socialist) was, "Workers of the world unite!" The government's redistribution of wealth and property doesn't exclude those who work and have property, it just makes them subject to the government's manipulation.

I think this is a good, thoughtful discussion. Shannonb, I appreciate your viewpoints. And for the record, other than calling Marx a socialist (and I think he'd be cool with that), I haven't really picked on anyone personally.
 
OP
TheCustomer99
Joined
Jan 5, 2007
Messages
1,480
Reaction score
124
Points
63
Location
Where the old Baker farm used to be.
Your Mac's Specs
Apple Black MacBook 2 GB RAM, 2.0 GHZ Intel Core 2 Duo Proecessor, 120 GB HD. 30 GB Black iPod Video
You're correct, Shannonb, I didn't call ANYONE a socialist... but I think the quotes are worth considering. Everyone should take a look at how and why this country was founded. Consider how the size and impact of the Federal government has grown since the FDR years. From my perspective, we're voting ourselves right down the road to socialism and it's all because the politicians pander for votes (the original topic of this discussion anyway). Many of the successful politicians tell us how unfair the taxes are, how the "rich" are not earning their share and don't deserve to keep their wealth (envy), how the "rich" prevent others from being successful and keep people down (philosophy of failure), how the less-fortunate people should enable the government to play Robin Hood and seize the wealth of some groups to give to other groups.

Socialism??? There are many degrees of socialism in the world and, in my opinion, a lot of people are willing to vote us there.

BTW, the rallying cry of Karl Marx (famed socialist) was, "Workers of the world unite!" The government's redistribution of wealth and property doesn't exclude those who work and have property, it just makes them subject to the government's manipulation.

I think this is a good, thoughtful discussion. Shannonb, I appreciate your viewpoints. And for the record, other than calling Marx a socialist (and I think he'd be cool with that), I haven't really picked on anyone personally.

I really don't disagree with any of this. Let me quote Michael Shermer, one of my personal heroes, who said in his book Why Darwin Matters, "Of the three intellectual giants (of the 19th century) - Darwin, Marx, and Freud - only Darwin is still relevant for the simple reason that his theory was right, and the scientific evidence continues to support and refine it." I used this quote as a rip on Marx, please don't turn this into an evolution vs. creationism thread anyone.
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top