Three of the tired old standards of leftist propaganda are
straw men, false choices, and redefinition of words. This article uses two of these methods in the problem
statement.
“Some key figures tackling the
global recession found this paper a useful addition to the debate at the heart
of which is this key question: is it best to let debt increase in the hope of
stimulating economic growth to get out of the slump, or is it better to cut
spending and raise taxes aggressively to get public debt under control?”
Clearly this is an example of “false
choice.” And it’s a goodie.
First the author establishes the
boundaries for the discussion by calling her false choice “this key question:” She actually uses “key” twice in the same sentence first by associating it with “figures
tracking the global recession.” This provides authority to the word “key” which
she exploits to lend weight to her false choice “question.” Clever.
The author then sets a contrast
between two alternatives both of which are themselves straw men.
Let’s take the left side of the straw
man choice: “let debt increase in the hope of stimulating economic growth”.
First, there are at least two
ways to “let debt increase.”
1.
Balance the
budget but do not repay debt so debt increases due to interest.
2.
Continue
spending more than income which increases debt.
Note that in physical systems rate is as important as direction. And
certainly in psychology we see not only rate effects but perception of rate having profound effects on behavior. Rate is not
considered as an important component of debt by the author. Such subtleties are
apparently far beyond the author’s grasp or, perhaps, cleverly ignored.
Second, the author implies with
the statement “stimulating economic growth” that debt stimulates economic
growth. This is a surprising statement. Perhaps the author means that
government spending beyond income stimulates economic growth. This statement is
a variant of Keynesian economics where government spending drives economic
growth. But it is not what the author says.
One has to assume that “stimulating
economic growth” does in fact cause the economy to grow. Many would argue that
this is a false belief.
So, for the left side of the
author’s false choice, we are presented with the novel economic idea that
increasing a country’s debt will increase its economy.
Now to the right side straw man: “…cut
spending and raise taxes aggressively to get public debt under control...”
Here the author combines two
different, unrelated actions as if they were somehow simultaneously required.
Clearly spending cuts are not a requirement for raising taxes. And, in the US,
these two actions actually define the argument between Dimocrats and Republicans.
Dimocrats want to raise taxes.
Republicans want to cut spending. Yet the author lumps these contrasting
approaches into a single alternate bucket with the expectation that readers won’t
notice.
At this point an informed reader
should simply throw up their mental hands and stop reading. Certainly any discussion
flowing from such a misintentioned, or misguided, opening statement is unlikely
to shed light on any real problem.
But I will soldier on – for a
while.
The author next makes this
statement: “EU commissioner Olli Rehn and influential US Republican politician
Paul Ryan have both quoted a 90% debt-to-GDP limit to support their austerity
strategies.” Thus the author implies that Rehn
and Ryan both support an “austerity strategy.”
The term “austerity” has been
used just once previously in the article as: “case for austerity cuts”. “Austerity
strategy” has not been defined by the author but its meaning is implied both by
the initial association with “cuts” (as well as “error”) and by placement after
the problem statement.
The author continues to misdirect, or bumble, by saying: “while
US politicians were arguing over whether to inject more stimulus into the
economy…”
In US English ‘whether’ is part of a contrast ‘whether or
not’ or ‘where a or b’. This writer leaves the ‘b’ part hanging. Readers can
fill in their own b part.
To wit: Whether to inject more stimulus or not; whether to
inject more stimulus or decrease debt; whether to inject more stimulus or not
go broke; whether to inject more stimulus or buy a motorcycle.
The author continues into her intellectual abyss with the statement: “the
euro was creaking under the strain of forced austerity.”
Now this is certainly a statement based upon belief and not
fact. The author doesn’t even attempt to justify the statement. And, for the
liberal Keynesian True Believers, she doesn’t have to.
Here I end analysis
of the article. Interested, or ideological, readers can pursue additional
examples of propaganda in the article but I will wander on to the next of many
challenges created by Lefty Logic in the Media.
No comments:
Post a Comment