2 ms·

Does anyone have a steelman argument for this?

Aurornis 9mo ago
Do you think that criminal prosecution for Jerome Powell for maybe doing something wrong with some building renovations under timing that just happens to coincide with the President’s personal and public vendetta against this person is worth steelmanning? At some point it stops being steelmanning and starts becoming an invitation for some propaganda to distract from the obvious.
- zamadatix 9mo ago
  The more obvious something seems the more valuable steelmanning becomes, precisely because if the only steelman arguments you get (if any) are propaganda at best (instead of reasons you just hadn't considered) then you can be that much more confident your outrage is based in reason rather than feelings. My guess is there won't be many coming up with steelman arguments for this one though anyways. Inviting propaganda is good, let the obviously weak arguments come front and center to be logically considered and ridiculed rather than put in small private group chats where they seem to grow and grow. This only works, in any way, if people stop saying things aren't worth having consideration about because it's obvious to them.
  - Aurornis 9mo ago
    I understand the theory of steelmanning, but in cases like this it's just an high-brow version of the "both sides" style of journalism where you pretend like both sides are similarly plausible and deserve equal consideration. At the extremes, the steelmanning can turn into a game of giving the other side more consideration. > Inviting propaganda is good, let the obviously weak arguments come front and center to be logically considered and ridiculed That's literally what I'm doing: Ridiculing the obviously weak arguments. And do you know what's happening? My ridicule and dismissiveness are being talked down, while you invite someone to "steelman" the argument instead. This pattern happens over and over again in spaces where steelmanning is held up as virtuous: It's supposed to be a tool for bringing weak arguments into the light so they can be dismissed, yet the people dismissing are told to shush so we can soak up the propaganda from the other side.
    - ratrace 9mo ago
      Have you considered that maybe you just want to live in an echo chamber?
    - zamadatix 9mo ago
      An invitation for steelmanning isn't about setting aside equal consideration regardless of the quality of the arguments brought, it's about giving equal chance to even consider other ideas when one cannot seem to find any on their one. When the merits are poor, that leaves far less than equal consideration of them in the end. Making the consideration brought forth equal in total time spent regardless of quality has nothing to do with the steelmanning process. A weak steelman argument is precisely a confirmation the opposing view is not worth much consideration, if any. > That's literally what I'm doing: Ridiculing the obviously weak arguments. > > And do you know what's happening? My ridicule and dismissiveness are being talked down, while you invite someone to "steelman" the argument instead. This pattern happens over and over again in spaces where steelmanning is held up as virtuous: It's supposed to be a tool for bringing weak arguments into the light so they can be dismissed, yet the people dismissing are told to shush so we can soak up the propaganda from the other side. So far all I've seen in this chain is complaint of the possibility other arguments may be brought up for fear we'd have to consider them if they were. At no point is the goal supposed to be everyone ends up agreeing with how one particular person sees things, it's supposed to be that what everyone believes they understand is openly put on the table a given appropriate consideration for the merits of the points presented. There will always be someone upset their position receives ridicule, that's neither here nor there for those wanting to strengthen their understanding of the situation instead of demand any other discussion can only ever be propaganda and should not be given a single thought. Again, a lot of the time the steelman idea is still bad - and that's still a good signal which doesn't require one give that position equal weight in the end.
drpepper42 9mo ago
The interest rates? If you wanted to crash demand for dollar various things makes a bit more sense. Venezuela might be more about threatening BRICS if you squint at it. The EU–Mercosur agreement looks like it might pass - timing is kind of weird. There is maybe a kind of logic to it for exports but I think it lowers the standard of living for us plebs.
unclad5968 9mo ago
As a casual follower of economic news and completely ignorant of politics, my guess is that the administration believes the fed isn't acting according to mandate of stability and jobs. I have no clue how valid that is
- sidibe 9mo ago
  Trump thinks lowering the interest rates means market goes up before election. That's all there is to it everyone knows it's not about stability and jobs
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
throwaway920102 9mo ago
I hate Trump but Treasury control over central banks and interest rates is not a particularly revolutionary thing. Independent central bank is a relatively new invention and a non-independently controlled central reserve bank did not always lead to immediate implosion in all cases. The concept of independent central bank only became popularized in the 1920s. The world existed before that. The dire thing here is that Trump himself is a maniac, so him taking control is very scary, but a non-independent central bank itself is not as big a calamity as 1000 other problems we're facing in society. History: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank_independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank_independence You can find many criticisms of the job performance of many of the past chairs of the US fed, the Fed is not infallible. The current Everything Bubble / Too Big to Fail situation we are in is largely of their creation.

Do you think that criminal prosecution for Jerome Powell for maybe doing something wrong with some building renovations under timing that just happens to coincide with the President’s personal and public vendetta against this person is worth steelmanning? At some point it stops being steelmanning and starts becoming an invitation for some propaganda to distract from the obvious.

zamadatix 9mo ago
The more obvious something seems the more valuable steelmanning becomes, precisely because if the only steelman arguments you get (if any) are propaganda at best (instead of reasons you just hadn't considered) then you can be that much more confident your outrage is based in reason rather than feelings. My guess is there won't be many coming up with steelman arguments for this one though anyways. Inviting propaganda is good, let the obviously weak arguments come front and center to be logically considered and ridiculed rather than put in small private group chats where they seem to grow and grow. This only works, in any way, if people stop saying things aren't worth having consideration about because it's obvious to them.
- Aurornis 9mo ago
  I understand the theory of steelmanning, but in cases like this it's just an high-brow version of the "both sides" style of journalism where you pretend like both sides are similarly plausible and deserve equal consideration. At the extremes, the steelmanning can turn into a game of giving the other side more consideration. > Inviting propaganda is good, let the obviously weak arguments come front and center to be logically considered and ridiculed That's literally what I'm doing: Ridiculing the obviously weak arguments. And do you know what's happening? My ridicule and dismissiveness are being talked down, while you invite someone to "steelman" the argument instead. This pattern happens over and over again in spaces where steelmanning is held up as virtuous: It's supposed to be a tool for bringing weak arguments into the light so they can be dismissed, yet the people dismissing are told to shush so we can soak up the propaganda from the other side.
  - ratrace 9mo ago
    Have you considered that maybe you just want to live in an echo chamber?
  - zamadatix 9mo ago
    An invitation for steelmanning isn't about setting aside equal consideration regardless of the quality of the arguments brought, it's about giving equal chance to even consider other ideas when one cannot seem to find any on their one. When the merits are poor, that leaves far less than equal consideration of them in the end. Making the consideration brought forth equal in total time spent regardless of quality has nothing to do with the steelmanning process. A weak steelman argument is precisely a confirmation the opposing view is not worth much consideration, if any. > That's literally what I'm doing: Ridiculing the obviously weak arguments. > > And do you know what's happening? My ridicule and dismissiveness are being talked down, while you invite someone to "steelman" the argument instead. This pattern happens over and over again in spaces where steelmanning is held up as virtuous: It's supposed to be a tool for bringing weak arguments into the light so they can be dismissed, yet the people dismissing are told to shush so we can soak up the propaganda from the other side. So far all I've seen in this chain is complaint of the possibility other arguments may be brought up for fear we'd have to consider them if they were. At no point is the goal supposed to be everyone ends up agreeing with how one particular person sees things, it's supposed to be that what everyone believes they understand is openly put on the table a given appropriate consideration for the merits of the points presented. There will always be someone upset their position receives ridicule, that's neither here nor there for those wanting to strengthen their understanding of the situation instead of demand any other discussion can only ever be propaganda and should not be given a single thought. Again, a lot of the time the steelman idea is still bad - and that's still a good signal which doesn't require one give that position equal weight in the end.

drpepper42 9mo ago

The interest rates? If you wanted to crash demand for dollar various things makes a bit more sense. Venezuela might be more about threatening BRICS if you squint at it. The EU–Mercosur agreement looks like it might pass - timing is kind of weird. There is maybe a kind of logic to it for exports but I think it lowers the standard of living for us plebs.

unclad5968 9mo ago

As a casual follower of economic news and completely ignorant of politics, my guess is that the administration believes the fed isn't acting according to mandate of stability and jobs. I have no clue how valid that is

sidibe 9mo ago
Trump thinks lowering the interest rates means market goes up before election. That's all there is to it everyone knows it's not about stability and jobs

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

throwaway920102 9mo ago

I hate Trump but Treasury control over central banks and interest rates is not a particularly revolutionary thing. Independent central bank is a relatively new invention and a non-independently controlled central reserve bank did not always lead to immediate implosion in all cases. The concept of independent central bank only became popularized in the 1920s. The world existed before that. The dire thing here is that Trump himself is a maniac, so him taking control is very scary, but a non-independent central bank itself is not as big a calamity as 1000 other problems we're facing in society. History: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank_independence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_bank_independence You can find many criticisms of the job performance of many of the past chairs of the US fed, the Fed is not infallible. The current Everything Bubble / Too Big to Fail situation we are in is largely of their creation.