NationStates Jolt Archive

So back on Feb. 19th, CNBC reporter Rick Santelli kind of had a hissy fit on air and ranted for a few minutes about how the government's plan to help homeowners was promoting bad behavior, etc. etc. I think it was discussed on NSG, I can't find the posts. Here's the rant on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEZB4taSEoA) if you absolutely must see it. He seemingly started something of a movement -- his throwaway line "I'm thinking of having a Chicago Tea Party" prompted websites (http://chicagoteaparty.com/) and some (kinda small) protest marches this last Friday.

Key word in that last sentence is "seemingly". A couple of journalists working for Playboy (yes, that Playboy) wrote a piece opining that the supposed "grassroots" Santelli-"inspired" movement looked a lot like astroturf (http://www.playboy.com/blog/2009/02/backstabber.html) -- that is, fake grassroots. For instance, chicagoteaparty.com was registered to a conservative radio producer back in August of '08 -- waiting for Santelli to have his wannabe-Howard-Beale* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_beale) moment 6 months later. They also tied the grass-or-astroturf-roots sites back to FreedomWorks.org, a project of the Koch family, the same friendly right-wing nuts who brought you the John Birch Society.

Nothing moves faster than accusations of inauthenticity around the blogging echo chamber. The Sam Adams Alliance -- a libertarian activist site tied to the Kochs in the Playboy (yes, that Playboy) article -- already has a smarmy letter (http://www.samadamsalliance.org/) up mocking the idea that they're up to anything untoward. They also helpfully link to their page on the Chicago Tea Party movement (or "movement") with further links to breathless coverage from sources like Instapundit.

All this kerfuffle naturally prompts some questions (besides "Who knew that Playboy still employed investigative journalists?" I guess Christie did do some things right after all.)

1) Was Rick Santelli's rant planned in advance?

2) Even if it wasn't, is the movement a creation of moneyed interests rather than genuine grassroots?

3) What differentiates grassroots from astroturf? It's easy to say "one's real and the other's fake" but if some rich dude throws his weight behind some movement that subsequently attracts public interest, is that a real movement or a fake one?

4) The Playboy journalists compare what they're seeing now with the kind of fake-spontaneous marches and demonstrations that the Kremlin used to organize so they could claim popular support for, say, sending troops to Afghanistan or whatever. Do you think these sorts of faux-populist movements are made more difficult or easier with the Internet?

5) Is Rick Santelli kind of a prick?

1.) Dunno.

2.) I ought to say I don't believe in pure "grassroots" movements, although this looks like an issue that might be more astroturf than grassroots.

3.) Grassroots movements actually catch on, they usually originate from a small scale nucleus, expand, gain support (from moneyed and non-moneyed alike) and take off. Astroturf falls flat, and everyone ignores it. You hit it on the head, most movements start off small scale until they either have a catalyzing event, or find an awesome patron.

4.) Easier to organize, more difficult to keep from being shown to be a sham.

5.) He might be, I don't know enough about him, although he seemed to be in preachy pundit mode, and that tends to irk.

The article makes a good case.

Its a bit sad that Playboy's journalists are superior to most media outlets.

I could care less about Santelli. The reason the average person without any corrupt motive would question or oppose the stimulus is a simple combination of a few things. The most basic is sticker shock: the stimulus is massive, and includes a number of things unlikely to stimulate anything. Some of us have taken economics at one point, and have studied the failed government interventions that worsened the economy of the 1930s, which was true of the majority of those efforts - that memory is another contributor. There are other reasons, but those are the big ones, I think.

Santelli got media coverage because his remarks were gravy for the pro-stimulus crowd: here's a wealthy guy who thinks the less-affluent people don't deserve government assistance. This is an easy positon to defeat.

if corporate media even mentions it, the odds are pretty long its ever anything other then astroturf. the only place your ever going to hear about anything REALLY "grassroots" is indi media, i mean REALLY indi media; here on the net, and i don't mean corporate media's pressence here on the net either, but people on the ground where and when; or face to face from one of your personal neighbors or friends.

Some of us have taken economics at one point, and have studied the failed government interventions that worsened the economy of the 1930s, which was true of the majority of those efforts - that memory is another contributor.
Unless you belonged to one of the other schools of economics (e.g., Keynes) or otherwise critically examined the assumptions of the lassez-faire faithful.

There's a reason why physicists have been making fun of economists for a long time. One might point to the fact that most of the macroeconomist types seem to be ideologically motivated and empirically undersupported.

“The master should make it his business to show his slaves, that the advancement of his individual interest, is at the same time an advancement of theirs. Once they feel this, it will require little compulsion to make them act as becomes them.”

Quite.

It's amazing what people will defend in the misguided belief that it represents their own interests when, in fact, it often runs counter.

As much as the Internet allows for underhand dissemination tactics, it also allows for the exposure, clouds and silver linings.

Santelli got media coverage because his remarks were gravy for the pro-stimulus crowd: here's a wealthy guy who thinks the less-affluent people don't deserve government assistance. This is an easy positon to defeat.

I'm not sure that's true -- whether the media has a pro-Democratic bias or not is an argument for another thread, but they definitely have a bias towards anything that might make a story, and a bias towards covering the media. (Just like most people, they like to talk about themselves.) Most of the coverage of Santelli's mini-meltdown came from either NBC/Universal outlets (which have a financial stake in drumming up interest in CNBC) or from partisan right-wing media outlets, which tended to cover the event positively.

4.) Easier to organize, more difficult to keep from being shown to be a sham.

As much as the Internet allows for underhand dissemination tactics, it also allows for the exposure, clouds and silver linings.

This is sort of what I think, and I wonder if the ease with which fake movements can be both created and unmasked results in an overly jaded audience -- that we're more likely now to disbelieve the truth because we're trying to avoid believing a lie. On the other hand, the credulousness of some people when it comes to the internet amazes me, so perhaps that balances out -- some people become overly cynical, some overly naive.

Unless you belonged to one of the other schools of economics
Which have absolutely no intellectual validity whatsoever.

empirically undersupported.

This is really the major flaw with that argument.

Empirical results are meaningless in economics.

The reason for that is that there is no such thing as "laboratory conditions" where economists can isolate a single variable and alter it to test its effects. So in the real world, if a minimum-wage increase is followed by a real GDP increase, that doesn't necessarily mean that the minimum-wage increase had a positive effect on the GDP. There may have been other factors at play that increased GDP, and perhaps the increase would have been even larger had it not been for the minimum-wage increase.

So all you have is the strength of the theory behind the argument.

As a general rule, it is absurd for practitioners of one discipline to attempt to apply their standards and processes to another discipline. Each discipline has its own standards, its own rules that have evolved because they are best suited for that particular discipline.

Astroturf sucks I mean welcome to nasty graze country *flashbacks to playing hockey at school*

1) I'd hazard at no, some people don't need prodding

2) so's Greenpeace doesn't mean its automatically invalidated *causes some controversy*

3) nothing they are both made by people to achieve things its just not cool if you happen to be rich

4) flash mobs have so far been impossible to predict so no

5) probabaly


Its a bit sad that Playboy's journalists are superior to most media outlets.

iirc its not a tit mag so I fail to see the difference

There's a reason why physicists have been making fun of economists for a long time. One might point to the fact that most of the macroeconomist types seem to be ideologically motivated and empirically undersupported.

physicists of all people make that accusation? :tongue:

All this kerfuffle naturally prompts some questions (besides "Who knew that Playboy still employed investigative journalists?" I guess Christie did do some things right after all.)

1) Was Rick Santelli's rant planned in advance?

2) Even if it wasn't, is the movement a creation of moneyed interests rather than genuine grassroots?

3) dunno don't realy agree with rallying people behind a cuase like that

4) The Playboy journalists compare what they're seeing now with the kind of fake-spontaneous marches and demonstrations that the Kremlin used to organize so they could claim popular support for, say, sending troops to Afghanistan or whatever. Do you think these sorts of faux-populist movements are made more difficult or easier with the Internet?

5) Is Rick Santelli kind of a prick?

1)Definatly

2)A foul purpose with a fair face- as the saying is

3)Grassroots is somthing that starts out small but has somthing that the public can get behind; most of these succeed. Astroturf is somthing made to earn money in what seems to be a fair cause or to help people.

4)both. those who are inquisitive can search the "truth" on the internet. but it is a cheap way to promote lies.

5)yep

Which have absolutely no intellectual validity whatsoever.
Bull. The primary difference in major schools of economics are the basic underlying assumptions regarding human behavior. The differences between Keynesian and classical assumptions are relatively minor; the difference in end results major.

The only valid metric for measuring the validity of the difference in assumptions is empirical. And classical economists seem allergic to empiricism.
This is really the major flaw with that argument.

Empirical results are meaningless in economics.
And this attitude is exactly why economists have trouble being taken seriously by scientists. The empirical method works.
The reason for that is that there is no such thing as "laboratory conditions" where economists can isolate a single variable and alter it to test its effects.
We don't have "laboratory conditions" whereby scientists can isolate the characteristics of stellar black holes, either. However, we do test hypotheses related to astronomy by making new astronomical observations and testing the assumptions of our models in the laboratory when laboratory conditions can be developed to test each of those assumptions.

The assumptions of economic theories can be tested empirically fairly easily. This is (for example) what the author of Predictably Irrational (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19231906) is up to. Basic results can be compared with empirical data to see if they are even remotely plausible; however, the collection and use of empirical data seems to have gone out of fashion in economic sciences some time ago.
So in the real world, if a minimum-wage increase is followed by a real GDP increase, that doesn't necessarily mean that the minimum-wage increase had a positive effect on the GDP. There may have been other factors at play that increased GDP, and perhaps the increase would have been even larger had it not been for the minimum-wage increase.
No, it doesn't. However, by correlating the history of real GDP growth/decline and the history of real minimum wage decrease/increase over a wide variety of historical situations in a wide variety of countries, you should - given sufficient data - be able to see if a relationship of any appreciable strength is present.

The science of pulling relationships out of noisy data has advanced quite substantially in the generations that have passed since empiricism became unfashionable for economists. Claiming that the statistical problems are too hard is not a valid excuse for failing to go to work collecting and analyzing data.
So all you have is the strength of the theory behind the argument.

As a general rule, it is absurd for practitioners of one discipline to attempt to apply their standards and processes to another discipline.
Epistemology is absurd? The reflexive study of the validity of standards and processes is a field unto itself these days. The same standards of empirical statistical validity are used by everybody from psychologists to physicists; the major difference within scientific disciplines is the degree of statistical significance worth publishing.
Each discipline has its own standards, its own rules that have evolved because they are best suited for that particular discipline.
For the discipline, or for those providing funding within that discipline? In the case of medicine, for example, standards have evolved to mediate the conflicts between ethical behavior, the interests of public health, the interests of litigation, and the interests of pharmaceutical companies.

Which have absolutely no intellectual validity whatsoever.



This is really the major flaw with that argument.

Empirical results are meaningless in economics.

The reason for that is that there is no such thing as "laboratory conditions" where economists can isolate a single variable and alter it to test its effects. So in the real world, if a minimum-wage increase is followed by a real GDP increase, that doesn't necessarily mean that the minimum-wage increase had a positive effect on the GDP. There may have been other factors at play that increased GDP, and perhaps the increase would have been even larger had it not been for the minimum-wage increase.

So all you have is the strength of the theory behind the argument.

As a general rule, it is absurd for practitioners of one discipline to attempt to apply their standards and processes to another discipline. Each discipline has its own standards, its own rules that have evolved because they are best suited for that particular discipline.
I love how you dismiss out of hand any other economic theory in the first sentence and then take pains to essentially say, "Fuck, we're winging it and we don't even know if any of this shit works" in the second.

iirc its not a tit mag so I fail to see the difference


You dont remember correctly.

I love how you dismiss out of hand any other economic theory in the first sentence and then take pains to essentially say, "Fuck, we're winging it and we don't even know if any of this shit works" in the second.

They dont need evidence, theyre objectively right!

Its a bit sad that Playboy's journalists are superior to most media outlets.

Pfft as Call to Power said its a tit magazine, i Hardly think that Play Boy's reporters have very tallented to write in a magazine like that. but journalism has become very poor in generalrecently, al the british tabloids report the same sort of crap in the same sort of way every day- the reporters turn somthing that could be mildly interesting in to a borefest

You dont remember correctly.

...well if it doesn't have clown porn then its not porn *scoffs*

I thought US mags didn't show bra-less women am I thinking of vagoo?

...well if it doesn't have clown porn then its not porn *scoffs*

I thought US mags didn't show bra-less women am I thinking of vagoo?

They show both. I dont know where you are getting your information, but stop:p

...well if it doesn't have clown porn then its not porn *scoffs*

I thought US mags didn't show bra-less women am I thinking of vagoo?

You're thinking of 1950...

They show both. I dont know where you are getting your information, but stop:p

they show clown porn?

You're thinking of 1950...

they didn't have scary perverted clowns in the 50's :confused: