tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post4530818522769563880..comments2023-12-20T04:18:41.617-06:00Comments on The Hunting of the Snark: Getting It Wrong AgainSusan of Texashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00076915322771385454noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-21267542517369661362015-04-12T12:12:25.268-05:002015-04-12T12:12:25.268-05:00At least she finally outgrew the tired response to...At least she finally outgrew the tired response to critics by claiming they misunderstood what she wrote, even when it was clear they did not. "I'm not a stupid poopeyhead. YOU ARE. So there!"Clever Pseudonymnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-36326891903762387342015-04-12T09:45:37.930-05:002015-04-12T09:45:37.930-05:00Baker's response was practically bland. It'...Baker's response was practically bland. It's weird that McArdle thinks she can do this tap dance where she obliquely and ever-so-carefully calls Baker stupid--<i>or does she!</i>.<br /><br />McArdle does not realize how far out on a limb she has gone--not regarding Baker perhaps but in general. Susan of Texashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00076915322771385454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-16016711447266357992015-04-12T04:56:38.044-05:002015-04-12T04:56:38.044-05:00And of course she doesn't understand the disti...And of course she doesn't understand the distinction between an insult, an attack and ad hominem argument.bulbulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14505565281151328789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-75939939646402206992015-04-10T18:33:02.880-05:002015-04-10T18:33:02.880-05:00More likely she meant that politically we could no...More likely she meant that politically we could not raise taxes. But then she also said this:<br /><br />"I'll agree with the liberals on this: the numbers are large, but they are not, economically speaking, catastrophically large. It is theoretically possible to pay for the program."<br /><br />Well, it's not like she's ever shown consistency or logic.Susan of Texashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00076915322771385454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-49766550143915648162015-04-10T18:29:53.909-05:002015-04-10T18:29:53.909-05:00She actually seems to think that if she keeps talk...She actually seems to think that if she keeps talking she will get everyone to agree with her. Baker responded for the third time and it was pretty funny.<br /><br />"I see that Bloomberg has apparently decided to give Megan McArdle infinite space to tell its readers that she doesn't like the Social Security trust fund. Well, they have to fill their website with something."<br /><br />We've all met people like this: they think if they can get you to agree with one little point they've won the argument. She keeps plugging away as if saying the government doesn't have to pay SS means the government won't pay SS. She says that everyone is saying that the laws can't be changed and Congress won't eliminate SS. This is a strawman; people are not arguing that. They are saying that we can find a way to fund SS. She does not want to have that argument. She wants to convince everyone that ending SS is inevitable. She said something once that I didn't quite figure out at the time.<br /><br />"Social Security is an immense problem. But the problem is not the cash outflow of benefits draining the economy; it is political risk, and structural inefficiency.<br /><br />The political risk is that whatever the economic theory, we will not politically be able to continue benefits at planned levels. People who counted on those benefits will thereby be made much worse off, because they will have saved too little on the assumption that the benefits would be there. (We will leave aside, for the nonce, the moral possibility of an unjust distribution of consumption between workers and retirees)." http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/05/the-problem-with-social-security/17469/<br /><br />This doesn't make sense--why say "we would not be able" to pay because of politics? I think now that she was counting on the Republicans getting rid of Social Security somehow despite the fact it was 2009.Susan of Texashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00076915322771385454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-57858283218134719812015-04-10T16:25:53.129-05:002015-04-10T16:25:53.129-05:00McArdle vs. Dean Baker is hilarious.
Makes Bambi ...McArdle vs. Dean Baker is hilarious.<br /><br />Makes Bambi v. Godzilla seem competitive.<br /><br />But Bloomberg ought to be chagrined.<br />~<br />ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©https://www.blogger.com/profile/06252371815131259831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-13342444632922186422015-04-10T11:59:06.019-05:002015-04-10T11:59:06.019-05:00Really? Wow. Really? Wow. Susan of Texashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00076915322771385454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-12940702764327039242015-04-10T11:57:43.442-05:002015-04-10T11:57:43.442-05:00FYI, SOT, I complemented Hiltzik on his piece and ...FYI, SOT, I complemented Hiltzik on his piece and sent him a link to you, but he already was familiar with you.Mr. Wonderfulnoreply@blogger.com