Friday, April 1, 2016

Policy, Choices and Hypocricy

I wrote the following comment to describe something that I see as hypocritical and self serving. Hiram then responded and I think that his comments are worth further discussion.
"Kind of like when a Liberal demands that corporations stop sending jobs overseas as they climb into their Subaru while talking on their Samsung phone." G2A 
"This form of argument is never a problem for me because I make a distinction between policy choices and the choices we make under policy choices once they have been made. For example, in a tax context, I may have a disagreement with the policy behind a tax deduction, but once the policy choice has been made, I have no problem at all in taking the deduction. 
With respect to trade, I think our policy should be to encourage domestic production, and to take a hard look at policies and practices that become barriers to domestic production. But I would never tell a consumer what to buy on that basis. 
More specifically, I think our policy should be to encourage America to make better cars, but not to tell consumers they can't or shouldn't buy a car that's better. 
Our economy is far better served by encouraging manufacturers to build better cars, than it is by policies that delude consumers into thinking inferior cars are better than they are. 
If that's hypocrisy, I have no problem at all in living with it."
 So what do you think:

  1. Is a Conservative who loudly promotes low taxes and low government benefits a hypocrite if they take money from a government program?
  2. Is a Liberal who loudly condemns companies for off shoring jobs to cut costs or improve quality a hypocrite if they buy a very low domestic content vehicle? (ie 50 or less on KOGOD)
Thoughts?

Ps. I can't wait to see the "policy to encourage American Automakers to make better cars". While demanding they pay higher wages, higher taxes, higher regulatory oversight costs, that they keep jobs in America, etc, etc, etc. I think they are highly motivated to improve their product quality and margins to pay for R&D, that is why they are manufacturing where their competitors do...

19 comments:

Anonymous said...


Is a Conservative who loudly promotes low taxes and low government benefits a hypocrite if they take money from a government program?

It's not a charge I am terribly eager to make. After all, the merits of a policy aren't at all dependent on the personal qualities such as hypocrisy, of the people who support or oppose it. I think accusations of hypocrisy are a tactic used by people who want to avoid the substance of the issue.

Is a Liberal who loudly condemns companies for off shoring jobs to cut costs or improve quality a hypocrite if they buy a very low domestic content vehicle? (ie 50 or less on KOGOD)?

Arguably, yes, arguably no. I think the real focus should be to address policies that make the off shoring of jobs attractive to business. Again, I am not frightened of the label "hypocrite".

--Hiram

John said...

Here is a definition. Since I am sure everybody has preconceived notions regarding the word.

hypocrisy
: the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do : behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel.

John said...

Hypocrite : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.

John said...

As for example 1, I think the Conservative is being true to their word if they take what is offered to them. I mean remember... These folks acknowledge that they are Conservative, Self Centered, Cheap, etc. And besides the universal concept of "I am paying taxes so I deserve it comes in".

As for example 2, I think the Liberal is being hypocritical if they offshore jobs (ie buy foreign) when saying they are against this behavior.

Other examples / thoughts?

John said...

Maybe
3. Conservative demanding that the government not get between a Doctor & Patient, while demanding abortion and anti-suicide laws.
4. BLM activists demanding law and order while breaking laws during their protests.

jerrye92002 said...

hypocrisy standards

jerrye92002 said...

"As for example 2, I think the Liberal is being hypocritical if they offshore jobs (ie buy foreign) when saying they are against this behavior."

I am sorry, but liberals can never be hypocritical. They have the astounding ability to hold two absolutely contradictory positions at the same time-- a complete lack of "cognitive dissonance" that the rest of us feel.

Anonymous said...

"They have the astounding ability to hold two absolutely contradictory positions at the same time."

It's called nuance, and shades of grey, something Conservatives and Republicans don't know or understand.

Joel

John said...

Joel,
Please help me understand the nuance of the following:

"Companies who move jobs overseas are selfish, harming America, should be punished and/or be legally prevented from doing so."

as compared to

"I should be free to buy the "best" product or service. (ie best features, best looking, best quality, best performance, best price, etc) And this should be based on my personal criteria and wants, not on what is "best" for our American workers."

John said...

Just look at the number of car models that score under a 10.

With each of these cars purchased, it means an American consumer quite literally wrote a $15K to $100K check to a foreign country and it's workers, instead of to America and it's workers.

jerrye92002 said...

Joel, call it whatever you like, but what conservatives don't understand is how liberals can say one thing one minute, say the opposite 5 minutes later, and then do something all else entirely. We would call it hypocrisy except liberals won't admit to it. They call it "nuance."

Example: Everybody was worried that Iran was within one year of having a nuclear bomb. Obama's deal with Iran was to keep them from getting a bomb for ten years. Last week Obama claims the deal will keep them from a bomb for up to a year, and that it is a GREAT deal. Is that nuance or is that a flat-out lie? We traded $150billion to get what we had before. Even Trump makes better deals than that.

John said...

Jerry,
I am not too sure the Conservatives should be throwing any stones at someone else's glass house...

"The National Debt and Big Deficits will lead to disaster."
"Yes we should give out big tax cuts..."

Both sides seem very capable of inconsistency...

jerrye92002 said...

Sorry, but you have missed all the "nuance" of those seemingly contradictory positions. Most conservatives believe that tax cuts create economic growth and more revenues (they do), and most such proposals include the notion of spending cuts to "pay for them" (a silly notion, if you want to so categorize it, I do).

How about this one, from the other side: "If we just increase state taxes on corporations and millionaires, we will get a revenue increase, and if we give corporations a tax break they will relocate here."

Sean said...

Pre-deal, most intelligence estimates say that the "breakout" time for Iran to take what they had and to make a weapon was about three months. Under the terms of the deal, we've:

* reduced their stockpiles of enriched uranium by 98%, and all of their enriched uranium is still at levels too low to be used in a weapon.
* reduced the number of centrifuges that can be used to enrich uranium by 70%
* essentially closed one of their two enrichment sites
* received agreement from the Iranian government to inspect and monitor all of their nuclear-related sites
* redesigned the Arak facility to no longer produce weapons-grade plutonium, and received Iranian agreement to export all of their spent fuel

All of that increases the breakout time to at least one year and it give the international community better information about the status of the Iranian program. Ensuring the Iranians don't have a bomb for over a decade is a good deal. Unless you want another land war in the Middle East?

jerrye92002 said...

So are those the terms of the deal as observed by BOTH sides? How do we know that the Iranians are doing what they supposedly agreed to in this deal? They weren't supposed to launch rockets, either, supposedly, but here we are.

John said...

"The National Debt and Big Deficits will lead to disaster."
"Yes we should give out big tax cuts..."

"Most conservatives believe that tax cuts create economic growth and more revenues (they do), and most such proposals include the notion of spending cuts to "pay for them" (a silly notion, if you want to so categorize it, I do). " Jerry

Reagan, Bush and Bush proved the Conservative view to be incorrect and inconsistent...

jerrye92002 said...

Depends on who you read. Federal revenues increased 50% after the Reagan tax cuts. Tip O'Neill reneged on the promise to cut spending, so deficits went up. That's not the fault of the tax cuts.

Sean said...

I'll just leave these here.

Carter vs. Reagan Revenue

Lies, Damned Lies, and Reaganolatry

Unicornomics

John said...

So many policies and so little impact...

Revenues

GDP