3 ms·

> massive, unpayable federal debt, rising inflation, and a serious constriction of the middle class I've been hearing people say all this since the 1970's. Wha

> massive, unpayable federal debt, rising inflation, and a serious constriction of the middle class I've been hearing people say all this since the 1970's. What's different now? > If you factor in rising crime rates, well, what do people do when they're desperate for basic needs? Yep, crime. Crime rates are not rising, they are low compared to the peak in the early 1990's. Whomever is telling you that is lying to you. Stop listening to them. > So, in this one example, we've got the government's mismanagement of the economy leading to mental health problems, physical health problems, and relationship problems. This is classic begging the question. By the second sentence you have concluded that the government spending is the source of all woes and use the rest of your post explaining again why you believe everything is the government's fault. You are unable to consider other possible explanations. Your reasoning begins and ends with the premise that the problem can only be government.

rglover 4y ago
> I've been hearing people say all this since the 1970's. What's different now? Right, because the problem accelerated when we unpinned from the gold standard. What's different is that the current balance is upwards of 31T dollars. Purchasing power of the U.S. dollar is down significantly from the 70s. > Crime rates are not rising, they are low compared to the peak in the early 1990's. They were. And then all of a sudden, they're on the rise again [1]. What might have caused that? Forcing people to stay in their homes, shutter their businesses (leading to employees being laid off), and lose their livelihoods. [1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/myths-and-realities-understanding-recent-trends-violent-crime https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/myth... (see: "Socioeconomic Instability and Disruptions to Community Life") > You are unable to consider other possible explanations. I'm not unable, there are just none that make as much sense. I can throw the same back at you and say that you're unable to consider that government is causing these problems (at the root, meaning direct or indirect). Can you tell me why they're not? > Your reasoning begins and ends with the premise that the problem can only be government. Did I say only? No, but in that specific example, it's easily ID'd as a root issue. That's the point of that type of reasoning. I have a hypothesis, does the logic supporting that hypothesis track all the way from the root to the effect and back. If so, I trust it (not in an absolute sense, but enough that I can quickly identify other outcomes as being descendant from that). I can certainly find other fringe causes, but if I had to pick out "the one," it'd be the government, nearly every single time.
- marshray 4y ago
  [1] Thank you for sharing that interesting article!

rglover 4y ago

> I've been hearing people say all this since the 1970's. What's different now? Right, because the problem accelerated when we unpinned from the gold standard. What's different is that the current balance is upwards of 31T dollars. Purchasing power of the U.S. dollar is down significantly from the 70s. > Crime rates are not rising, they are low compared to the peak in the early 1990's. They were. And then all of a sudden, they're on the rise again [1]. What might have caused that? Forcing people to stay in their homes, shutter their businesses (leading to employees being laid off), and lose their livelihoods. [1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/myths-and-realities-understanding-recent-trends-violent-crime https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/myth... (see: "Socioeconomic Instability and Disruptions to Community Life") > You are unable to consider other possible explanations. I'm not unable, there are just none that make as much sense. I can throw the same back at you and say that you're unable to consider that government is causing these problems (at the root, meaning direct or indirect). Can you tell me why they're not? > Your reasoning begins and ends with the premise that the problem can only be government. Did I say only? No, but in that specific example, it's easily ID'd as a root issue. That's the point of that type of reasoning. I have a hypothesis, does the logic supporting that hypothesis track all the way from the root to the effect and back. If so, I trust it (not in an absolute sense, but enough that I can quickly identify other outcomes as being descendant from that). I can certainly find other fringe causes, but if I had to pick out "the one," it'd be the government, nearly every single time.

marshray 4y ago
[1] Thank you for sharing that interesting article!