4 ms·

Inflation rose under Reagan every year. It also dropped every year. Just so happens it dropped by more. So if you just ask "Did inflation rise under Reagan?"

Inflation rose under Reagan every year. It also dropped every year. Just so happens it dropped by more. So if you just ask "Did inflation rise under Reagan?" A very literal answer would be "yes, repeatedly, just not overall." So you'd balk, "That's not the spirit of the question!" But let's switch to the spirit of the question. Suppose you know that Volcker's anti-inflation efforts are almost certainly the most decisive factor in the decline in inflation. Suppose you also know he was appointed to control inflation by Carter. And you know that Reagan later fired him for other effects of this work. So if we're going by the spirit of the question, it appears to the individual on the street to read, "Was Reagan the President most responsible for halting the inflation of the late 70s?" Once we're reading charitably and trying to make the question as sensible as possible, even then the answer is still probably no. The most literal or the most charitable answer is no. But, sure, asked to put money on it, most people would give the dumb answer too, because they'd assume anyone who asked such a poor question hadn't given the issue too much thought. Ok, ok. Postscript and time out. This is obstinate sophistry for the fun of obstinate sophistry. I wasn't of voting age in the late 70s and early 80s, and don't have a strong partisan opinion on combatting stagflation. But you could run this same sort of game on almost any one of these questions. It's not a clean world of pure facts that people are mucking up with their perceptions. It's almost all perceptions on top of everything. In fact, there's even a selection bias in the questions they pick, which have muddy expositions like this. No one just asks "Did Nixon visit China?" or "Did Johnson succeed Lincoln?" Uncomplicated facts are uncomplicated. Complicated facts only appear simple when you're giving the standard answer.

nl 10y ago
> Inflation rose under Reagan every year. > It also dropped every year. What does this mean? Are you just making a pedantic point that some months had higher inflation rates than others or am I missing something?
- brownbat 10y ago
  That is indeed the pedantic point. I'd argue the comment gets better as you go along, maybe skip to the postscript. But I'm biased, YMMV.
btilly 10y ago
When we say "rose under Foo" we typically mean from start to finish. I doubt that anyone who said it rose under Reagan said so because of uncertainty about what was asked. As for the facts, this shows up with clear cut and simple examples. Does economic theory say that raising minimum wages increases unemployment? Was Obama born in the USA? Do Democrats by and large care more about black deaths than white ones? Were weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq? Large fractions of people will answer these along partisan lines. The actual answers are yes, yes, yes, and no. (The most controversial being the third. See the description of the "kill whitey" experiments at https://www.wired.com/2010/09/kill-whitey-its-the-right-thing-to-do/ https://www.wired.com/2010/09/kill-whitey-its-the-right-thin... for verification.) People really filter information through their biases and come up with beliefs that are more based on ideology than reality.
- brownbat 10y ago
  > When we say "rose under Foo" we typically mean from start to finish. Huh, I don't. If I ask you if you got out of bed yesterday, I don't care whether you are currently in bed or not. I'm asking if you rose at all. On economics, if I ask you if there was mass unemployment during the 30s, I don't mean "only in 1939." On WMDs, well, here we go again. Sarin tipped missiles were found in Iraq according to intelligence declassified in 2015: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have-bought-and-destroyed-iraqi-chemical-weapons.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have-... Before that, in a hearing at the HASC in 2006, regarding weapons found in Iraq during the war in various states of functioning, Army Col. John Chu reported, "These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction." http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918 http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918 More from WIRED: https://www.wired.com/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/all/1 https://www.wired.com/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-contin... On the minimum wage, I know what you're getting at, but I'm sure Card and Krueger would quibble with the phrasing of the question, arguing that they also have an economic theory with different results. I think you're exaggerating what is clear cut and what's not to support your own bias that the world is comprised of simple uncomplicated facts, and people are either wrong or right. The more charitable explanation is that most issues belie significant nuance. Not every issue, to be sure. Obama was born in the US. Rain is wet. But a lot of these studies cherry pick issues of controversy that are issues of controversy precisely because they hide layers of nuance that some people want to pretend isn't there at all. The Iraq WMDs though... we just have HASC testimony on the record saying it's true, I don't know where you're coming from on that one. ;)

nl 10y ago

> Inflation rose under Reagan every year. > It also dropped every year. What does this mean? Are you just making a pedantic point that some months had higher inflation rates than others or am I missing something?

brownbat 10y ago
That is indeed the pedantic point. I'd argue the comment gets better as you go along, maybe skip to the postscript. But I'm biased, YMMV.

btilly 10y ago

When we say "rose under Foo" we typically mean from start to finish. I doubt that anyone who said it rose under Reagan said so because of uncertainty about what was asked. As for the facts, this shows up with clear cut and simple examples. Does economic theory say that raising minimum wages increases unemployment? Was Obama born in the USA? Do Democrats by and large care more about black deaths than white ones? Were weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq? Large fractions of people will answer these along partisan lines. The actual answers are yes, yes, yes, and no. (The most controversial being the third. See the description of the "kill whitey" experiments at https://www.wired.com/2010/09/kill-whitey-its-the-right-thing-to-do/ https://www.wired.com/2010/09/kill-whitey-its-the-right-thin... for verification.) People really filter information through their biases and come up with beliefs that are more based on ideology than reality.

brownbat 10y ago
> When we say "rose under Foo" we typically mean from start to finish. Huh, I don't. If I ask you if you got out of bed yesterday, I don't care whether you are currently in bed or not. I'm asking if you rose at all. On economics, if I ask you if there was mass unemployment during the 30s, I don't mean "only in 1939." On WMDs, well, here we go again. Sarin tipped missiles were found in Iraq according to intelligence declassified in 2015: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have-bought-and-destroyed-iraqi-chemical-weapons.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have-... Before that, in a hearing at the HASC in 2006, regarding weapons found in Iraq during the war in various states of functioning, Army Col. John Chu reported, "These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction." http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918 http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918 More from WIRED: https://www.wired.com/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/all/1 https://www.wired.com/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-contin... On the minimum wage, I know what you're getting at, but I'm sure Card and Krueger would quibble with the phrasing of the question, arguing that they also have an economic theory with different results. I think you're exaggerating what is clear cut and what's not to support your own bias that the world is comprised of simple uncomplicated facts, and people are either wrong or right. The more charitable explanation is that most issues belie significant nuance. Not every issue, to be sure. Obama was born in the US. Rain is wet. But a lot of these studies cherry pick issues of controversy that are issues of controversy precisely because they hide layers of nuance that some people want to pretend isn't there at all. The Iraq WMDs though... we just have HASC testimony on the record saying it's true, I don't know where you're coming from on that one. ;)