Why can’t conservatives just admit they were wrong about inflation?

[Bowfinger]

Catching up this morning and ran across this piece in the Washington Post:

Why can’t conservatives just admit they were wrong about inflation?

We know that economist Marvin Goodfriend, one of President Trump's picks for the Federal Reserve, would have been terrible at the job over the past 10 years. What we don't know is whether he'll be any better at it now.

The early signs, though, are not encouraging.
[ ... ]
In 2010, when unemployment was at 9.4 percent, Goodfriend said it was “premature” for the Fed to do more to encourage job growth because markets didn't think inflation was going to fall that much the next five years. In 2011, when unemployment was at 9 percent, he worried that the “high unemployment rate” would make “it hard for the Fed to move preemptively against inflation,” which it needed to do “fairly soon.” And in 2012, when unemployment was at 8.2 percent, Goodfriend argued that it was “really doubtful” that the Fed's stimulus efforts would even be able to decrease joblessness to 7 percent, although that was almost just as well. If the stimulus did succeed in reducing unemployment, he said, it might only “give rise to a rising inflation rate in the next few years, which would just be disastrous for the economy.”

Goodfriend is like a firefighter who think it's better not to use the hose on your burning house so that things don't get water damaged.

To be fair, though, to err is to be an economic forecaster. The real question is whether you learn from your mistakes. Goodfriend, unfortunately, hasn't. Indeed, when Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) asked him during his confirmation hearing this week why he had been so “wrong so many times,” Goodfriend said only that low inflation is important. This isn't exactly the level of self-reflection we would hope for after empirical reality had spent the last 10 years refuting his ideas. ...​

More at the link.

I think it raises an interesting question. Conservative economists (and Republicans in general) cling to their economic dogma in spite of decades (centuries?) of empirical evidence that it's wrong. Why? Why won't they admit their errors? Why won't they revise their theories to incorporate real-world experience?

More generally, why is it so nearly unthinkable for Republicans to admit to errors about anything? It seems like once Republicans take a stance, they are entrenched no matter how much factual evidence contradicts them. Is it willful mendacity, i.e., they know they're wrong but must not admit it, or is it cognitive dissonance where they are simply unable to process the contrary evidence in front of them?

Your thoughts?

 

[zerocool84]

Republicans can't ever be wrong, no matter what. Because even making a correction on anything shows they are not perfect in every way and not chosen by their god to do his bidding.

 

[dank69]

If they admit they were wrong it means a liberal was right and HOLY FUCKING SHIT THAT CAN NEVER HAPPEN!

 

[skull]

He'd be right if inflation wasn't a must already. We have to have inflation or it'd be impossible to pay down our deficit. In other words the government has to print money to pay our debts, causing inflation. I'd be more interested in his ideas to fix that.

 

[fskimospy]

He'd be right if inflation wasn't a must already. We have to have inflation or it'd be impossible to pay down our deficit. In other words the government has to print money to pay our debts, causing inflation. I'd be more interested in his ideas to fix that.

This is not true. First, inflation is not required to pay down the US’s debt and second I’m not even sure why that would be desirable.

Republicans loudly and repeatedly predicted inflation for years and years. As far as I can tell almost no major republican has come out and admitted they were wrong.

 

[sdifox]

Conservatives are never wrong

 

[Thump553]

I wish Trump would put an inflation hawk in at the Fed. We are in the midst of another candy rush economic bubble-much like the early GWB years. Trump's tax bill is going to put a whole lot more cah in the hands of the ultra-rich while hobbling the federal government's ability to respond to economic or natural crises. Given Trump's flightiness, the chances of us getting into another war real soon is quite probable, and you know those chumps will "fund" that war off the budget (as did GWB). All of this points to a strong possibility of inflation, possibly even a stagflation crash.

The vast majority of economists (of any political bent) are like stuck clocks. They harp on one point for years, then when it happens they point out how brilliant they were for predicting this seven years early.

 

[Commodus]

Because, in this case, admitting a mistake would involve challenging one of the fundamental tenets of modern Republicans: that government must always stay out of the economy (unless, of course, it's to lower corporate taxes or punish industries that aren't offering bribes). You admit that the government sometimes has to offer stimuluses and you have to admit that the free market doesn't magically fix itself.

 

[trenchfoot]

Conservatives are never wrong

They have to think and act that way because the House of Cards That Trump Built was glued together with lies and false promises. That house would simply fall in on itself like dominoes should they admit to a lie because that would start revealing all of the others, or as they would put it, "a chain of completely unforeseen circumstances occurred" rather than admit to the lie, just like what happened with Bush and Cheney's handling of the nation's economy and how they explained it away with such fictitious verbiage.

There are Repubs up on the Hill that still insist the crashed economy we all experienced at the tail end of the Bush presidency was a very prosperous one. They just didn't admit exactly who prospered from it and as we all know, it sure wasn't the middle class and the poor. The Bush admin. walked those lies right out of the White House and left them in care of the GOP of whom to this very day still stick by the original lie.

 

[Moonbeam]

Catching up this morning and ran across this piece in the Washington Post:

Why can’t conservatives just admit they were wrong about inflation?

We know that economist Marvin Goodfriend, one of President Trump's picks for the Federal Reserve, would have been terrible at the job over the past 10 years. What we don't know is whether he'll be any better at it now.

The early signs, though, are not encouraging.
[ ... ]
In 2010, when unemployment was at 9.4 percent, Goodfriend said it was “premature” for the Fed to do more to encourage job growth because markets didn't think inflation was going to fall that much the next five years. In 2011, when unemployment was at 9 percent, he worried that the “high unemployment rate” would make “it hard for the Fed to move preemptively against inflation,” which it needed to do “fairly soon.” And in 2012, when unemployment was at 8.2 percent, Goodfriend argued that it was “really doubtful” that the Fed's stimulus efforts would even be able to decrease joblessness to 7 percent, although that was almost just as well. If the stimulus did succeed in reducing unemployment, he said, it might only “give rise to a rising inflation rate in the next few years, which would just be disastrous for the economy.”

Goodfriend is like a firefighter who think it's better not to use the hose on your burning house so that things don't get water damaged.

To be fair, though, to err is to be an economic forecaster. The real question is whether you learn from your mistakes. Goodfriend, unfortunately, hasn't. Indeed, when Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) asked him during his confirmation hearing this week why he had been so “wrong so many times,” Goodfriend said only that low inflation is important. This isn't exactly the level of self-reflection we would hope for after empirical reality had spent the last 10 years refuting his ideas. ...​

More at the link.

I think it raises an interesting question. Conservative economists (and Republicans in general) cling to their economic dogma in spite of decades (centuries?) of empirical evidence that it's wrong. Why? Why won't they admit their errors? Why won't they revise their theories to incorporate real-world experience?

More generally, why is it so nearly unthinkable for Republicans to admit to errors about anything? It seems like once Republicans take a stance, they are entrenched no matter how much factual evidence contradicts them. Is it willful mendacity, i.e., they know they're wrong but must not admit it, or is it cognitive dissonance where they are simply unable to process the contrary evidence in front of them?

Your thoughts?

My thoughts are that you have laid out a reality, a point of view, an observation that you believe fits reality but which almost no economist of the kind you describe will believe and which nobody who selects for economists to run the Fed will believe either. People who can't admit things won't admit they won't admit things. People wear blinders for the same reason that we put them on horses. People don't like and don't function well in a panic state. A panic state always accompanies increases in awareness. Sacred cows are sacred because of the emotional comfort they bring.

All of this is a mechanical result of self hate. Feeling can lead to catastrophe, the rise into consciousness of repressed childhood trauma. We were born with infinite curiosity and a capacity to learn and what were we taught, that we are worthless. Curiosity killed the cat is an unconscious recognition of our psychic death.

Humanity has a problem. There are lots and lots of folk who are so frightened to remember what happened to them they would see the world destroyed first.

Now I have done what you did on a macro scale, spoken what cannot be heard.

 

[Greenman]

Catching up this morning and ran across this piece in the Washington Post:

Why can’t conservatives just admit they were wrong about inflation?

We know that economist Marvin Goodfriend, one of President Trump's picks for the Federal Reserve, would have been terrible at the job over the past 10 years. What we don't know is whether he'll be any better at it now.

The early signs, though, are not encouraging.
[ ... ]
In 2010, when unemployment was at 9.4 percent, Goodfriend said it was “premature” for the Fed to do more to encourage job growth because markets didn't think inflation was going to fall that much the next five years. In 2011, when unemployment was at 9 percent, he worried that the “high unemployment rate” would make “it hard for the Fed to move preemptively against inflation,” which it needed to do “fairly soon.” And in 2012, when unemployment was at 8.2 percent, Goodfriend argued that it was “really doubtful” that the Fed's stimulus efforts would even be able to decrease joblessness to 7 percent, although that was almost just as well. If the stimulus did succeed in reducing unemployment, he said, it might only “give rise to a rising inflation rate in the next few years, which would just be disastrous for the economy.”

Goodfriend is like a firefighter who think it's better not to use the hose on your burning house so that things don't get water damaged.

To be fair, though, to err is to be an economic forecaster. The real question is whether you learn from your mistakes. Goodfriend, unfortunately, hasn't. Indeed, when Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) asked him during his confirmation hearing this week why he had been so “wrong so many times,” Goodfriend said only that low inflation is important. This isn't exactly the level of self-reflection we would hope for after empirical reality had spent the last 10 years refuting his ideas. ...​

More at the link.

I think it raises an interesting question. Conservative economists (and Republicans in general) cling to their economic dogma in spite of decades (centuries?) of empirical evidence that it's wrong. Why? Why won't they admit their errors? Why won't they revise their theories to incorporate real-world experience?

More generally, why is it so nearly unthinkable for Republicans to admit to errors about anything? It seems like once Republicans take a stance, they are entrenched no matter how much factual evidence contradicts them. Is it willful mendacity, i.e., they know they're wrong but must not admit it, or is it cognitive dissonance where they are simply unable to process the contrary evidence in front of them?

Your thoughts?

I admit it, I was wrong about inflation.

 

[Jhhnn]

The notion that inflation is a threat during massive unemployment, low demand & falling asset prices is simply absurd. I'll bet he's all for tax cuts & trickle down, too.

 

[JSt0rm]

they probably dont even remember they fought that idea.

 

[JSt0rm]

I admit it, I was wrong about inflation.

Well cutting taxes 1.5 trillion will increase interest rates to fight inflation. Congrats. You guys do everything backwards.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Catching up this morning and ran across this piece in the Washington Post:

Why can’t conservatives just admit they were wrong about inflation?

We know that economist Marvin Goodfriend, one of President Trump's picks for the Federal Reserve, would have been terrible at the job over the past 10 years. What we don't know is whether he'll be any better at it now.

The early signs, though, are not encouraging.
[ ... ]
In 2010, when unemployment was at 9.4 percent, Goodfriend said it was “premature” for the Fed to do more to encourage job growth because markets didn't think inflation was going to fall that much the next five years. In 2011, when unemployment was at 9 percent, he worried that the “high unemployment rate” would make “it hard for the Fed to move preemptively against inflation,” which it needed to do “fairly soon.” And in 2012, when unemployment was at 8.2 percent, Goodfriend argued that it was “really doubtful” that the Fed's stimulus efforts would even be able to decrease joblessness to 7 percent, although that was almost just as well. If the stimulus did succeed in reducing unemployment, he said, it might only “give rise to a rising inflation rate in the next few years, which would just be disastrous for the economy.”

Goodfriend is like a firefighter who think it's better not to use the hose on your burning house so that things don't get water damaged.

To be fair, though, to err is to be an economic forecaster. The real question is whether you learn from your mistakes. Goodfriend, unfortunately, hasn't. Indeed, when Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) asked him during his confirmation hearing this week why he had been so “wrong so many times,” Goodfriend said only that low inflation is important. This isn't exactly the level of self-reflection we would hope for after empirical reality had spent the last 10 years refuting his ideas. ...​

More at the link.

I think it raises an interesting question. Conservative economists (and Republicans in general) cling to their economic dogma in spite of decades (centuries?) of empirical evidence that it's wrong. Why? Why won't they admit their errors? Why won't they revise their theories to incorporate real-world experience?

More generally, why is it so nearly unthinkable for Republicans to admit to errors about anything? It seems like once Republicans take a stance, they are entrenched no matter how much factual evidence contradicts them. Is it willful mendacity, i.e., they know they're wrong but must not admit it, or is it cognitive dissonance where they are simply unable to process the contrary evidence in front of them?

Your thoughts?

You have to look at the principle of DOGMA and how admitting one fact/belief is false will bring down a whole pyramid of dearly held false facts/beliefs.

 

[Exterous]

There have long been inflation hawks in the Fed like Laura Mester and they've come from both R and D presidents (She came during the Obama admin). There was significant turmoil on all sides about the best course of action and, basically no one thought Berkake was doing the right thing outside of a few people in Washington. (Fortunately it ended up being people that mattered like Obama, Bush and much of the Treasury). Ben's own book shows they were acutely aware of the threat their actions could pose to inflation trends and it weighed heavily on him. Several people in the Fed itself during the crisis (again, nominated by both Rs and Ds) ended up being wrong about inflation, but they did provide a counter point in the discussions. I'd be more concerned if this was for the Chairmanship but otherwise I think its beneficial to have economists with different viewpoints on the board as its pretty clear this is not an exact science.

This statement struck me as particularly odd:

In that case, everybody can agree that the Fed should be doing everything it can to help the economy.

Everyone? Really? So there weren't 9 Democratic Senators who voted against TARP? Elizabeth Warren didn't succeed in stripping the 13(3) powers from the Fed? Bernie Sanders didn't have several TV interviews criticizing the Fed as doing too much? Dennis Kucinich didn't take shots at the Fed's actions and want them to back off on the bailouts? Not to mention the huge swell of populist outrage from non-elected people. I honestly don't know how they could even try and justify that statement.

The notion that inflation is a threat during massive unemployment, low demand & falling asset prices is simply absurd.

And yet, Bernake, Yellen, Lacker and - well really everyone at the Federal Reserve during the crisis, completely disagrees with you on that.

 

[senseamp]

Conservatives are wrong about pretty much everything. If they start admitting it, then the next question is going to be what are they good for.

 

[Greenman]

Conservatives are wrong about pretty much everything. If they start admitting it, then the next question is going to be what are they good for.

As the spokesmen for conservatives, my admission of guilt covers everyone. Can we move on now?

 

[Starbuck1975]

As the spokesmen for conservatives, my admission of guilt covers everyone. Can we move on now?

They are incapable of moving on because doing so would necessitate self reflection.

 

[Moonbeam]

They are incapable of moving on because doing so would necessitate self reflection.

I would be curious as to how you conceptualize what moving on would entail for somebody capable of self reflection? I get a sinking feeling in the pit of my gut that I am one of those 'they' you are pointing at who might be frozen in some way that escapes me and not be able to move on. Can you help. All I can come up with on my own is that the truth is something you may find very very very annoying and would love to go to some guilt free place where you don't have to hear it. I believe that place is named Snowflake Safe Place Land if I'm not mistaken but what would I know with my handicap.

Not to worry about my crushed emotional state. I can easily escape to my own fantasy land where science has peer reviewed proven that It's conservatives who specialize in fleeing to La La Land.
You can fool yourselves and you can fool others, but you can't fool real scientific data. Altered reality thinking is a something conservative do more than liberals and it has been proven by scientists.

But don't worry. No matter how well that has been established you will listen to your gut and deny the evidence because, well you know, because you can self reflect. Go ahead, look at that gifted delusional in the mirror. What a beauty.

 

[senseamp]

Conservatives still haven't moved of from 40 years of waiting for trickle down. The only lesson they learned from Kansas supply side experiment failure is that it should be taken nationwide. Every important conservative economic prediction has been wrong, and they keep doubling up on them. Being wrong on Inflation is really the least of their problems.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Republicans can't ever be wrong, no matter what. Because even making a correction on anything shows they are not perfect in every way and not chosen by their god to do his bidding.

You beat me to the point.

 

[Jhhnn]

And yet, Bernake, Yellen, Lacker and - well really everyone at the Federal Reserve during the crisis, completely disagrees with you on that.

That's revisionist history. They were more concerned with allaying fears of inflation rather than inflation itself in at the time.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kohn20100513a.htm

The FRB bent every rule in the book to prevent systemic failure of financial markets & narrowly averted the debt/ deflation scenario of the early 1930's.

It needs to be understood that the Free Marketeers simply accept the widespread misery of that as part of the natural order of things. Just part of the sacred business cycle.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I would be curious as to how you conceptualize what moving on would entail for somebody capable of self reflection? I get a sinking feeling in the pit of my gut that I am one of those 'they' you are pointing at who might be frozen in some way that escapes me and not be able to move on. Can you help. All I can come up with on my own is that the truth is something you may find very very very annoying and would love to go to some guilt free place where you don't have to hear it. I believe that place is named Snowflake Safe Place Land if I'm not mistaken but what would I know with my handicap.

Not to worry about my crushed emotional state. I can easily escape to my own fantasy land where science has peer reviewed proven that It's conservatives who specialize in fleeing to La La Land.
You can fool yourselves and you can fool others, but you can't fool real scientific data. Altered reality thinking is a something conservative do more than liberals and it has been proven by scientists.

But don't worry. No matter how well that has been established you will listen to your gut and deny the evidence because, well you know, because you can self reflect. Go ahead, look at that gifted delusional in the mirror. What a beauty.

I wasn't referring to you.

I do find your response interesting.

I no longer consider myself a Republican because the party, as it exists today, violates or contradicts my personal values, yet I still consider myself a conservative, and I've also gained an appreciation for the European model of democratic socialism.

My comment has more to do with the circle jerk threads. The ones where someone takes a very specific topic and then extrapolates to broad generalities about conservatives, or posed questions in an intellectually dishonest way. They don't truly want answers. If anything, the circle jerks theads are their own snowflake safe space la la lands of condescending smugness, which I can only attribute to insecurity.

You don't usually join the circle jerks, so I found your response uncharacteristic.

 

[Bowfinger]

I wasn't referring to you.

I do find your response interesting.

I no longer consider myself a Republican because the party, as it exists today, violates or contradicts my personal values, yet I still consider myself a conservative, and I've also gained an appreciation for the European model of democratic socialism.

My comment has more to do with the circle jerk threads. The ones where someone takes a very specific topic and then extrapolates to broad generalities about conservatives, or posed questions in an intellectually dishonest way. They don't truly want answers. If anything, the circle jerks theads are their own snowflake safe space la la lands of condescending smugness, which I can only attribute to insecurity.

You don't usually join the circle jerks, so I found your response uncharacteristic.

Why are you here if you see this thread as a circle jerk? Is someone holding a gun to your head? Feel free to move along.

Or, better yet, make yourself useful and challenge the premise of this thread. I gave one example for economics; please provide counterexamples. Show us we're wrong. I love well-reasoned counterarguments from someone who's intelligent and informed.

I'll be the first to admit I have no solid data to prove this thread's premise. It does match years of observation, however. Indeed, Republicans even seem proud of it. How many times have we heard Republicans deride apologies as a sign of weakness? How many times have we seen right-wingers refuse to budge an inch even after presented with mountains of contradictory facts? As someone who values truth and accuracy, I'd really like to understand what's in their heads.