David Hirschleifer writes:
Regardless of who's right on the economics, clearly the ‘stimulus'
language captures the pro side perfectly, and the con side not at all.
Indeed, the term immunizes the mind to opposing evidence. After a cup
of stimulus from Starbucks, if I'm still drowsy, by definition I need
another jolt.
….Opponents have lots of metaphors they could choose from. Instead of
the image of rousing activity, there could be the economic ‘suppression
plan,' ‘deadweight package,' or ‘growth-retardant system.' For
alliteration, there's ‘prosperity Propofol.' To honor the frugality of
government, how about ‘resource-flush scheme,' ‘wealth dump,' or
‘porkapalooza'? As for mechanical metaphors, there's ‘recovery off
switch,' ‘opportunity crusher,' and ‘investment choke button.' For the
computer savvy, how about ‘stagnation drag and-drop-down device,' or
‘system freezer'.
In recognition of our gleaming new
infrastructure, there's the ‘road-to-Hell-paving project'. And to
celebrate the new Star Trek film, how about economic ‘stasis-field
mechanism', ‘enterprise eliminator,' 'job vaporizer,' or just plain
‘black hole'?
So, here's a political psychology question. Why did opponents gullibly
swallow the stimulus terminology, and thereby defeat? Any ideas?
Stimulus-Something causing or regarded as causing a response.
Even more interesting is why didn’t these ideas come to them over all earlier stimulus programs? Probably because under their hackneyed ideas, anything they do is stimulus and anything anyone else does is not.
Newt Gingrich was politically astute enough to realize “you control the language, you control the game”. When Welfare started being called “entitlements” instead of welfare — game over for welfare. Who could argue FOR entitlements?
Still, I don’t think stimulus is nearly as positive a word as Hirschleifer claims. A stimulant is a drug. Crystal Meth is a stimulant. It implies a bad come down on the other side. It also connotes a culture of instant gratification. I bet if you polled cultural conservatives they wouldn’t repulse to the word stimulus.
The Crony Package.
These language games can get tricky. How was it that the estate tax became the “death tax”?
The average age in the House is about 53 and in the Senate is about 63. This means that the typical congressperson lawyer got his macro in undergraduate school when Keynesian cross was IT.
A 53-year-old would have been 18 years old and thus eligible for Econ 101 in college in 1974. 1974 was the year that Friedrich Hayek won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. Two years later Milton Friedman won the prize in large part for his work on the permanent income hypothesis, which was intended as a direct rebuttal to the Keynesian cross.
“A 53-year-old would have been 18 years old and thus eligible for Econ 101 in college in 1974. 1974 was the year that Friedrich Hayek won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. Two years later Milton Friedman won the prize in large part for his work on the permanent income hypothesis, which was intended as a direct rebuttal to the Keynesian cross.”
And yet modern undergraduate macro courses still teach IS-LM.
They have been doing something more effective. They have bundled it with the bail out of the banks, which is very unpopular with the public, and call it socialism. This has the added advantage that they can attack univesal health care with the same label so they do not have to learn new words
Barkley,
Because the estate tax really is the death tax. Death is the triggering event. Sales tax is taxed upon sales. Income tax is taxed upon income. Property tax is assessed on the ownership of property. Individuals get taxed, not businesses, estates, boats, houses or Coca-Colas.
Differently, a stimulus package that doesn’t stimulate is not one.
Nothing succeeds like failure, and giving plenty of rope to hang themselves with is nice, but Republicans are not that clever.
joan nails it. Likewise talking about believing that government is the solution to every problem.
The choices suggested in the article are over the top, even for the nutty world of Fox, CNBC and the WSJ editorial pages.
Is it because people naturally favor action over inaction. Also a republican was President when the problem started.
Tyler, quoting David Hirschleifer, writes:
“So, here’s a political psychology question. Why did opponents gullibly swallow the stimulus terminology, and thereby defeat? Any ideas?”
Because porkulus didn’t catch on like it should have.
Uh, Constant – “crap sandwich” didn’t catch on for a reason. Its includes a mild swear word.
That “bailout” did – despite the fact that it is negatively loaded – argues that the media isn’t out there trying to help Obama with it.
“Stimulus” is far more neutral, given that the Republicans used it for the same underlying theory only a few years ago.
George W. Bush introduced the term “stimulus.” Remember those $600 checks? So why would opponents “gullibly swallow the stimulus terminology” they invented? Because they invented it.
I was laid off shortly before the government took $150B (such a small number these days, one year later) off the credit markets to “stimulate” the economy. A lot of conservatives (such as myself) were loudly against these packages from the start. The fact that the term “stimulus” has been attached to them for as long as I can remember might, at one time or another, be attached to particular Republicans, but the conservatives I know have always used more… colorful language.
Conservative disgust for Jr flows from situations like this. He has weakened the natural part of conservatives by diluting the conservative nature of the party. The result is that people can make statements such as we have read with a straight face. Sure, SOME of the current opponents of the “stimulus” are both stupid enough to think that it will work and partisan enough to care who is president when 8 million Americans lose their jobs, but most of us have been opposed to socialism for our entire political lives.
LOL! Mario beat me to it.
So, here’s a political psychology question. Why did opponents gullibly swallow the stimulus terminology, and thereby defeat? Any ideas?
I have been asking that question repeatedly and I can’t get anyone to answer.
In my view, the correct slogan is “tax cuts cut jobs and kill the economy” and that is based on the evidence.
Look at the names of bills passed by Republican Congresses and signed by Bush:
06/07/2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001
03/09/2002 Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002
05/28/2003 Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003
05/17/2006 Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005
Then we have the bill that Democrats were forced to include only tax cuts, but no spending, because they needed Republican votes and Bush’s signature:
02/13/2008 Economic Stimulus Act of 2008
Of course, we can go back to this bill passed by a Republican Congress and signed by Reagan:
08/13/1981 Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981
Not a single one of those bills delivered. The economy really tanked after Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. The NBER defined the Reagan recession as beginning the month before the bill was passed after months of negotiating the bill, and ending 15 months after he signed it, with employment not recovering to the level when he signed it for months after the NBER end to the contraction.
In the 1980s, economic growth occurred and continued with repeated tax hikes, which oddly did not include “stimulus” “recover” or “growth” in their names. Nor was the Clinton tax hike that led off the longest expansion called a growth or stimulus or jobs bill.
One would think that economists who are working from sound theory backed up by data would denouce tax cuts as job cutting bills.
Instead, Obama’s advisor is the co-author of a paper that uses convoluted analysis to try to prove that tax cuts stimulate the economy, but ends up concluding that tax hikes to reduce deficits result in growth, based on the Clinton tax hikes. I think. The conclusion is not clearly stated. Of course, nothing in the 21st century is included in the paper.
Strange I recall every media outlet allowing republicans to pretty much have all at bats and sling these kinds of ignorant lies all over the place. Shameon you for giving these idiots more bandwith. That said yours and alex’s pieces have been above average, and I wonder if it was that the package shouldhave included more state aid and fica taxes what would you say to another 1.4 trillion dedicated purely to this now? Alex and/or Tyler
@ Barkley Rosser:
A “Death Tax” on the rich is still a “Death Tax” if a limited one.
Barkley,
You seem to argue that the fact that the death tax applies only to “4% of those who die” is sufficient to justify it. But I wonder, since you know so much about it, if you know how much money is involved (i.e., what percentage of the wealth transfers that are made by bequests is involved). Obviously this matters too. I do not know the answer to this, but I’m sure that since you are in d.m.’s face about it you WILL know. In any event, share the wealth of your knowledge please.
Oh, and the term “estate” implies death. Actually, to be really precise, it should be called the “large estate tax.”
Pro-state interests still control the loudspeakers. Opponents might not wish to swallow, but they will. Consider the example in the gun control debate of the term ‘assault weapon.’ It was never used by gun makers, was created by gun-control advocates, and is still of uncertain definition, but is universally accepted nomenclature.
By contrast when Sarah Palin tried to forward ‘death panels’ she was ridiculed by AP etc. and gained little traction.
Comments on this entry are closed.