5 ms·

> For some people that amounts to fraud. But it very clearly isn’t. That’s an egregious abuse of the word, “fraud” by any commonly accepted definition.

by dsacco 9y ago

dmichulke 9y ago
Some sorts of fraud are legal if that's what you mean. Usually, when committed by the government. Examples: - Underfunded pension funds, - bank bailouts with taxpayer money, - wars with made-up reasons, The cost of each should be in the trillions but it's not fraud. By the same reasoning, previously one could expect to get a positive real interest rate (= nominal interest rate - inflation), yet that's not the case. Legally fraud? No. Challenging the economics of the last few milleniums? Yes.
- sedtrader 9y ago
  > bank bailouts with taxpayer money You do know the banks payed back the bailout money with interest and added fines right? Overall it was a net positive for tax payers. Not sure how that's a fraud... Your other examples are suspect as well...
  - rdm70 9y ago
    http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/sec_finds_nj_acting_negligentl.html http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/sec_finds_nj_acting...
    - sedtrader 9y ago
      Yes, NJ did illegal actions and they were charged with fraud... Not sure what you are saying here? You are supporting my case.
      - rdm70 9y ago
        Yes I am supporting your case. I should have posted more than just the link.
  - dmichulke 9y ago
    Just because they were able to sell it this time doesn't mean it was a good decision. If in Russian roulette you have a chance of 1 in 6 to win 1 million and 5 in 6 to die, winning the million doesn't mean you made a good decision. What happens if they cannot sell it? They lose lots of money, equivalent to food and shelter for millions of the poor or maybe ten thousands of chemo-therapies. Government is not good with investment.
- dsacco 9y ago
  > Some sorts of fraud are legal if that's what you mean. No, that's not at all what I mean. What I mean is what I said - inflation isn't just not fraud, the two terms are not even definitionally relevant to one another. > Usually, when committed by the government. Examples: - Underfunded pension funds, - bank bailouts with taxpayer money, - wars with made-up reasons, I'm not going to engage in a discussion about whether or not governments do things which are economically controversial or a net loss for society (nor am I going to agree or disagree that your examples are good examples of that observation in practice). What I will say is that "bank bailouts with taxpayer money" are not fraud, even if the banks themselves were complicit in fraudulent activity, because the bailouts were a practical matter of economic preservation. The government itself did not defraud the American people in this example, and your framing here is a rearrangement of the actual facts. Using taxpayer funds (which is tantamount to the government doing nearly anything) for something which you disagree with and which is related to a financial system does not constitute fraud. As for the other two examples: I won't comment on war, but can you clarify what you mean by "underfunded pension funds"? How does this example constitute fraud, and what exactly do you mean by these funds being underfunded? Deliberately so? By whom? To what effect? > The cost of each should be in the trillions but it's not fraud. By the same reasoning, previously one could expect to get a positive real interest rate (= nominal interest rate - inflation), yet that's not the case. Legally fraud? No. Challenging the economics of the last few milleniums? Yes. Fraud requires a conscientious, covert decision on the part of one party to cause, and thereby profit from, a loss for another party. You can't feasibly map fraud to inflation. It's not just that it isn't fraud (it isn't!), it's that monetary policy is so complex, and its incumbents' decisions so diverse, that it's conceptually orthogonal to fraud. Economic control systems and their feedback mechanisms are very complex and influenced by many unrelated parties; you need not ascribe malicious motive or conspiratorial profiteering to the government to end up with characteristics you're unhappy with.
  - dmichulke 9y ago
    > What I will say is that "bank bailouts with taxpayer money" are not fraud, even if the banks themselves were complicit in fraudulent activity, because the bailouts were a practical matter of economic preservation. The government itself did not defraud the American people in this example I see where you come from but there are two things you should consider: 1. Intention is really hard to prove. Just as much as you say that there was no intention I can say there was because there can be no proof and the government can (and most probably will) do everything in its power to eliminate the slightest evidence of intention, regardless of intention or not. 2. But more importantly, intention doesn't matter. If a trillion goes missing, it doesn't matter whether it was fraud or lack of oversight, the end result is the same and if the government were your employee, you'd just fire them for incompetence (again, regardless of intention). In that sense I used fraud and I honestly wasn't aware that it might sound (and even be) hyperbolic. The above lines should explain better the examples: - Inflation (induced by printing money): You cannot seriously just increase a number in a computer somewhere or print a few notes and expect the economy or living standard to suddenly improve. Otherwise we could just all stop working and live of printed money. - Underfunded pension funds: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-14/fees-rise-for-underfunded-pensions https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-14/fees-rise... The problem here is not being underfunded but that promises are made to future retirees while it's obvious that these promises cant be kept. There are more examples, just google for some combination of "pension fund shortfall underfunded". Note this problem is the same in Europe.
ashark 9y ago
There's a certain family of oft-posted-about-online economic/political ideologies that, as best I can tell, spread primarily by abusing language in this way, hoping the reader does not catch them sliding in a metaphorical, colloquial, or simply not-quite-right terms, then trying to leverage those terms' stricter and more correct definitions when drawing conclusions. Later the converted reader will happily and confidently spread the same message, e.g. "taxation IS theft!"
- jerkstate 9y ago
  we should coin a term for this, but I can't think of a good one - "licentious language" doesn't quite have the same ring as "fake news!"
  - ska 9y ago
    What's wrong with "bullshit" ?
  - SilasX 9y ago
    In Less Wrong/Slate Star Codex circles, it's called the Non-Central Fallacy (basically, trying to assert that a technically-valid edge case of X should be treated as if it's a typical example of X): http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst_argument_in_the/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst...
  - thingification 9y ago
    I guess you're wanting both a more specific and more infectious (or virulent?) word, but: equivocation.
- dmichulke 9y ago
  "Taxation is theft" is spread by Libertarians based on the principle that any forced / coerced taking away of your property without having legally signed a contract to do so is theft. It's certainly not an abuse of language, it's a fact if you don't assume ex ante that the state can do what others are forbidden. The reasons you describe here are mixing up an "others are stupid" attitude with legitimate and consistent views of the world. It's sad to see these views derided and the child commenters applaud. Ever heard of Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises or Milton Friedman? Well, guess they are stupid as well. Let me know if you want to read something about it before deriding not-your-opinion next time.

> For some people that amounts to fraud. But it very clearly isn’t. That’s an egregious abuse of the word, “fraud” by any commonly accepted definition.

by dsacco 9y ago

> For some people that amounts to fraud. But it very clearly isn’t. That’s an egregious abuse of the word, “fraud” by any commonly accepted definition.

dmichulke 9y ago

Some sorts of fraud are legal if that's what you mean. Usually, when committed by the government. Examples: - Underfunded pension funds, - bank bailouts with taxpayer money, - wars with made-up reasons, The cost of each should be in the trillions but it's not fraud. By the same reasoning, previously one could expect to get a positive real interest rate (= nominal interest rate - inflation), yet that's not the case. Legally fraud? No. Challenging the economics of the last few milleniums? Yes.

sedtrader 9y ago
> bank bailouts with taxpayer money You do know the banks payed back the bailout money with interest and added fines right? Overall it was a net positive for tax payers. Not sure how that's a fraud... Your other examples are suspect as well...
- rdm70 9y ago
  http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/sec_finds_nj_acting_negligentl.html http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/sec_finds_nj_acting...
  - sedtrader 9y ago
    Yes, NJ did illegal actions and they were charged with fraud... Not sure what you are saying here? You are supporting my case.
    - rdm70 9y ago
      Yes I am supporting your case. I should have posted more than just the link.
- dmichulke 9y ago
  Just because they were able to sell it this time doesn't mean it was a good decision. If in Russian roulette you have a chance of 1 in 6 to win 1 million and 5 in 6 to die, winning the million doesn't mean you made a good decision. What happens if they cannot sell it? They lose lots of money, equivalent to food and shelter for millions of the poor or maybe ten thousands of chemo-therapies. Government is not good with investment.
dsacco 9y ago
> Some sorts of fraud are legal if that's what you mean. No, that's not at all what I mean. What I mean is what I said - inflation isn't just not fraud, the two terms are not even definitionally relevant to one another. > Usually, when committed by the government. Examples: - Underfunded pension funds, - bank bailouts with taxpayer money, - wars with made-up reasons, I'm not going to engage in a discussion about whether or not governments do things which are economically controversial or a net loss for society (nor am I going to agree or disagree that your examples are good examples of that observation in practice). What I will say is that "bank bailouts with taxpayer money" are not fraud, even if the banks themselves were complicit in fraudulent activity, because the bailouts were a practical matter of economic preservation. The government itself did not defraud the American people in this example, and your framing here is a rearrangement of the actual facts. Using taxpayer funds (which is tantamount to the government doing nearly anything) for something which you disagree with and which is related to a financial system does not constitute fraud. As for the other two examples: I won't comment on war, but can you clarify what you mean by "underfunded pension funds"? How does this example constitute fraud, and what exactly do you mean by these funds being underfunded? Deliberately so? By whom? To what effect? > The cost of each should be in the trillions but it's not fraud. By the same reasoning, previously one could expect to get a positive real interest rate (= nominal interest rate - inflation), yet that's not the case. Legally fraud? No. Challenging the economics of the last few milleniums? Yes. Fraud requires a conscientious, covert decision on the part of one party to cause, and thereby profit from, a loss for another party. You can't feasibly map fraud to inflation. It's not just that it isn't fraud (it isn't!), it's that monetary policy is so complex, and its incumbents' decisions so diverse, that it's conceptually orthogonal to fraud. Economic control systems and their feedback mechanisms are very complex and influenced by many unrelated parties; you need not ascribe malicious motive or conspiratorial profiteering to the government to end up with characteristics you're unhappy with.
- dmichulke 9y ago
  > What I will say is that "bank bailouts with taxpayer money" are not fraud, even if the banks themselves were complicit in fraudulent activity, because the bailouts were a practical matter of economic preservation. The government itself did not defraud the American people in this example I see where you come from but there are two things you should consider: 1. Intention is really hard to prove. Just as much as you say that there was no intention I can say there was because there can be no proof and the government can (and most probably will) do everything in its power to eliminate the slightest evidence of intention, regardless of intention or not. 2. But more importantly, intention doesn't matter. If a trillion goes missing, it doesn't matter whether it was fraud or lack of oversight, the end result is the same and if the government were your employee, you'd just fire them for incompetence (again, regardless of intention). In that sense I used fraud and I honestly wasn't aware that it might sound (and even be) hyperbolic. The above lines should explain better the examples: - Inflation (induced by printing money): You cannot seriously just increase a number in a computer somewhere or print a few notes and expect the economy or living standard to suddenly improve. Otherwise we could just all stop working and live of printed money. - Underfunded pension funds: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-14/fees-rise-for-underfunded-pensions https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-14/fees-rise... The problem here is not being underfunded but that promises are made to future retirees while it's obvious that these promises cant be kept. There are more examples, just google for some combination of "pension fund shortfall underfunded". Note this problem is the same in Europe.

ashark 9y ago

There's a certain family of oft-posted-about-online economic/political ideologies that, as best I can tell, spread primarily by abusing language in this way, hoping the reader does not catch them sliding in a metaphorical, colloquial, or simply not-quite-right terms, then trying to leverage those terms' stricter and more correct definitions when drawing conclusions. Later the converted reader will happily and confidently spread the same message, e.g. "taxation IS theft!"

jerkstate 9y ago
we should coin a term for this, but I can't think of a good one - "licentious language" doesn't quite have the same ring as "fake news!"
- ska 9y ago
  What's wrong with "bullshit" ?
- SilasX 9y ago
  In Less Wrong/Slate Star Codex circles, it's called the Non-Central Fallacy (basically, trying to assert that a technically-valid edge case of X should be treated as if it's a typical example of X): http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst_argument_in_the/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst...
- thingification 9y ago
  I guess you're wanting both a more specific and more infectious (or virulent?) word, but: equivocation.
dmichulke 9y ago
"Taxation is theft" is spread by Libertarians based on the principle that any forced / coerced taking away of your property without having legally signed a contract to do so is theft. It's certainly not an abuse of language, it's a fact if you don't assume ex ante that the state can do what others are forbidden. The reasons you describe here are mixing up an "others are stupid" attitude with legitimate and consistent views of the world. It's sad to see these views derided and the child commenters applaud. Ever heard of Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises or Milton Friedman? Well, guess they are stupid as well. Let me know if you want to read something about it before deriding not-your-opinion next time.