Liberal Media Summed Up in One Sentence

 

An article in today’s Washington Post about President Trump’s Florida rally quotes a supporter on one of the administration’s early moves to preserve jobs in the mining sector:

Several people said they would have liked to see more coverage of a measure that Trump signed Thursday that rolled back a last-minute Obama regulation that would have restricted coal mines from dumping debris in nearby streams. At the signing, Trump was joined by coal miners in hard hats.

“If he hadn’t gotten into office, 70,000 miners would have been put out of work,” Patricia Nana, a 42-year-old naturalized citizen from Cameroon. “I saw the ceremony where he signed that bill, giving them their jobs back, and he had miners with their hard hats and everything — you could see how happy they were.”

Having thus set her up, the article proceeds to knock her down:

The regulation actually would have cost relatively few mining jobs and would have created nearly as many new jobs on the regulatory side, according to a government report — an example of the frequent distance between Trump’s rhetoric, which many of his supporters wholeheartedly believe, and verifiable facts.

This sentence floored me. There are at least 3 major problems with it:

  1. “Relatively few” is not quantified. Relative to what, precisely? Is this supposed to contradict her citation of 70,000? That number could be correct but still judged “relatively few” relative to the total employment figures in the mining industry.
  2. The source of their “verifiable facts” is “a government report,” because naturally we can trust the same government bureaucracy that created the regulations to come up with accurate, unbiased figures as to the impacts of said regulations. No unforeseen consequences escape the attention of our all-knowing central planners! Supposing I wanted to verify this “verifiable fact” for myself, they haven’t even bothered to tell me which government report they used as a source.
  3. What really floored me here is the underlying concept that we can compensate for lost jobs in the mining sector with new jobs “on the regulatory side.” Seriously? Jobs moved from farming to manufacturing, to the service sector, and now we can move them all into the regulatory sector. Let’s have a nation where everyone has a job regulating someone else, and we’ll finally have full employment! What could possibly go wrong?
Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 59 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Mark Wilson Inactive
    Mark Wilson
    @MarkWilson

    Joseph Stanko:The source of their “verifiable facts” is “a government report,” because naturally we can trust the same government bureaucracy that created the regulations to come up with accurate, unbiased figures as to the impacts of said regulations. No unforeseen consequences escape the attention of our all-knowing central planners! Supposing I wanted to verify this “verifiable fact” for myself, they haven’t even bothered to tell me which government report they used as a source.

    There’s also the basic confusion of “facts” with model-based predictions.  If I were an expert in coin flipping, and I predict the next flip will be heads, the media would report heads as a verifiable fact before the coin has been flipped.

    This same problem is all over the place in the climate change debate.

    • #1
  2. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    Mark Wilson (View Comment):
    There’s also the basic confusion of “facts” with model-based predictions. If I were an expert in coin flipping, and I predict the next flip will be heads, the media would report heads as a verifiable fact before the coin has been flipped.

    The coin came up tails the last 6 flips, and the odds of 7 consecutive tails are 1 in 128, therefore the next flip is over 99% certain to be heads.  Print it, it’s now a verifiable fact!

    • #2
  3. JLocked Inactive
    JLocked
    @CrazyHorse

    Mining experience is quite easily converted into regulation jobs — here’s a brief training video:

    That being said, having played in several Bluegrass bands in Pennsylvania — I know several songs written about the misery of coal

    • #3
  4. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    I see now that @catorand beat me to the punch.

    • #4
  5. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):
    I see now that @catorand beat me to the punch.

    I may have beat you to the punch but we had exactly the same thought.

    • #5
  6. Man With the Axe Inactive
    Man With the Axe
    @ManWiththeAxe

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):

    The coin came up tails the last 6 flips, and the odds of 7 consecutive tails are 1 in 128, therefore the next flip is over 99% certain to be heads. Print it, it’s now a verifiable fact!

    Heads is due, so it’s going to be heads.

    Tails is hot, so it’s going to be tails.

    • #6
  7. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    Man With the Axe (View Comment):
    Heads is due, so it’s going to be heads.

    Fact checker says: verifiable fact.

    Man With the Axe (View Comment):
    Tails is hot, so it’s going to be tails.

    Fact checker says: Trump’s rhetoric, 4 Pinocchios.

    • #7
  8. Sash Member
    Sash
    @Sash

    I noticed that exact thing in that article.  But it’s the same every single day.

    Liberals simply cannot figure out why people think they lie.  They think their personal opinion is unshakeable fact.

    I think something really is wrong with their brains, they honestly will quote their opinions and claim that it is fact.  They can’t seem to see that anyone could disagree with their opinions.

    I’m so glad Hillary didn’t win, but have no idea where this whole thing is headed, they have no problem marching under banners that are simply untrue, like “Not my President”  “hands up don’t shoot”  I guess it could be opinion, but I’m fairly certain that it is a fact, that Trump is indeed President, and that makes him their President as well.

    I see no way to bridge a gap that is based on falsehood.

    • #8
  9. Ryan M(cPherson) Inactive
    Ryan M(cPherson)
    @RyanM

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):
    I see now that @catorand beat me to the punch.

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    Joseph Stanko (View Comment):
    I see now that @catorand beat me to the punch.

    I may have beat you to the punch but we had exactly the same thought.

    Both great posts!  It’s pretty funny that you said almost verbatim the same thing.  And yes, the idea of “regulatory jobs” as being a good thing (as job creation) is absolutely mind boggling.

    Last night, my wife was asking me if I honestly thought that democrats were all either cynically power-hungry or dumb, or if there were smart people who looked at the same facts and came to different conclusions.  As an example, I used the minimum wage, and said I don’t think there are any economists who think the minimum wage is economically good, but many who say that it is a social good.  This is another sort of example, but I find it more puzzling.  There cannot really be people who think that a regulatory job actually qualifies as a contribution to our economy, can there?  Really?  I mean, there may be stupid reporters who just see the word “job” and don’t bother to think about anything except the most basic balancing of “jobs” here vs. “jobs” there…  but even that is a stretch.  I have a hard time believing that there are any intelligent people who read this and think “huh, good point!”

    • #9
  10. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    Ryan M(cPherson) (View Comment):
    . . . This is another sort of example, but I find it more puzzling. There cannot really be people who think that a regulatory job actually qualifies as a contribution to our economy, can there? Really? I mean, there may be stupid reporters who just see the word “job” and don’t bother to think about anything except the most basic balancing of “jobs” here vs. “jobs” there… but even that is a stretch. I have a hard time believing that there are any intelligent people who read this and think “huh, good point!”

    I don’t think that’s actually right.  There are some government functions that involve solving collective action problems or free rider problems that actually produce net value I think.  The military is an obvious example.  In the regulatory sphere, I actually think some environmental regulation qualifies.  So I don’t think you can say it never happens.  But WaPo gave the impression that the bureaucrat who decides what angles the bananas can be curved at adds value just because we call what he does a “job.”  I think we’re pretty well past the point of diminishing returns in the regulatory jobs category in most substantive areas — even in those substantive areas where there were any returns to begin with.

    • #10
  11. KC Mulville Inactive
    KC Mulville
    @KCMulville

    Add a third, from the always fabulous @molliehemingway:

    Her last section, addressing that same “news report:”

    Apart from the abject ignorance required to imagine that the downsides of losses in coal mining jobs are easily balanced in their communities by new jobs in regulating the affairs of other people, there’s another issue. Say what you want about coal miners, they are producing a real thing that powers much of our economy. Electricity generation, steel production, cement manufacturing, and liquid fuel are some of the uses of coal.

    What would you say regulators produce?

    • #11
  12. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    KC Mulville (View Comment):
    Add a third, from the always fabulous @molliehemingway:

    Her last section, addressing that same “news report:”

    Apart from the abject ignorance required to imagine that the downsides of losses in coal mining jobs are easily balanced in their communities by new jobs in regulating the affairs of other people, there’s another issue. Say what you want about coal miners, they are producing a real thing that powers much of our economy. Electricity generation, steel production, cement manufacturing, and liquid fuel are some of the uses of coal.

    What would you say regulators produce?

    I wonder if the morons who wrote this article knows that they’ve spawned a cottage industry in discussing what idiots they are.

    • #12
  13. Joseph Stanko Coolidge
    Joseph Stanko
    @JosephStanko

    Ryan M(cPherson) (View Comment):
    As an example, I used the minimum wage, and said I don’t think there are any economists who think the minimum wage is economically good, but many who say that it is a social good.

    I’ve certainly seen people argue that it’s economically beneficial as well.  Usually the claim is that lower-income people spend a larger percentage of their income, so if you put a few more dollars in their pocket they will immediately spend it on consumer goods and this will have a stimulus effect on the economy.  The local McDonalds will sell more burgers to local workers with a few extra dollars to spend, offsetting the additional costs of paying their employees a higher wage, in a virtuous cycle that lifts the entire economy.

    As to whether they actually believe this or not, I couldn’t say.

     

    • #13
  14. Viruscop Member
    Viruscop
    @Viruscop

    Comment deleted.

    • #14
  15. Bill Nelson Inactive
    Bill Nelson
    @BillNelson

    The basic issue is this:

    Does Trump make up data and facts? Yes. And rather often. And do his supporters believe what he tells them? Yes. And certainly one who goes to a Trump rally, post election, would be a real Trump fan.

    So there is an issue of facts or correctness, that has Trump as its source. This is a valid issue.

    But when Obama also created facts or other narratives (such as the issue with his mother’s insurance coverage), his supporters also believed him. The difference being that neither were called to account. Neither were held to the standard of accuracy and truth.

    That such a double standard exists gives the Trump group cover, and they use it (I heard Conway do exactly this yesterday).

    This hurts the media and continues to hurt the media.

    But it also hurts Trump. It sets a low bar for Trump, so that facts are not important, and when facts become less important, fewer correct policy decisions are made..

     

    • #15
  16. Chris O. Coolidge
    Chris O.
    @ChrisO

    Ryan M(cPherson) (View Comment):
    I have a hard time believing that there are any intelligent people who read this and think “huh, good point!”

    There are many people, and they are intelligent, who would do just that. It’s not a matter of intellect, they simply don’t want to think about it on the next level. Why? Because at the surface level this reporter gives them what they want: a warm moral blanket. It is the reassurance that the reader is a good person. This is the addiction the left creates.

    You can only go to them to receive the balm, because any other perspective is evil; you’re a bad person for even questioning what they say. This is the comfort zone otherwise intelligent people placed themselves in, and woe to the person who tries to pry them away. No rational argument counters this emotional  safety.

    • #16
  17. Fritz Coolidge
    Fritz
    @Fritz

    There cannot really be people who think that a regulatory job actually qualifies as a contribution to our economy, can there?

    Well, I read that the EPA has 15,000 employees, and the Dept of Ed has 3,000. So right there, you have thousands who think they contribute.

    • #17
  18. Philopus Inactive
    Philopus
    @Philopus

    Chris O. (View Comment):

    Ryan M(cPherson) (View Comment):
    I have a hard time believing that there are any intelligent people who read this and think “huh, good point!”

    There are many people, and they are intelligent, who would do just that. It’s not a matter of intellect, they simply don’t want to think about it on the next level. Why? Because at the surface level this reporter gives them what they want: a warm moral blanket. It is the reassurance that the reader is a good person. This is the addiction the left creates.

    You can only go to them to receive the balm, because any other perspective is evil; you’re a bad person for even questioning what they say. This is the comfort zone otherwise intelligent people placed themselves in, and woe to the person who tries to pry them away. No rational argument counters this emotional safety.

    You might call this “Fake Virtue.”

    • #18
  19. JcTPatriot Member
    JcTPatriot
    @

    To anyone on the Left, replacing a free-market-funded job with a taxpayer-funded job is ALWAYS a good thing.

    The Left wants everyone to be either taxpayer-paid, or on the taxpayer-funded dole, and once they’ve eaten all the rich, they’ll figure out what to do next. Just like Greece and Venezuela.

    • #19
  20. Mark Wilson Inactive
    Mark Wilson
    @MarkWilson

    Chris O. (View Comment):

    Ryan M(cPherson) (View Comment):
    I have a hard time believing that there are any intelligent people who read this and think “huh, good point!”

    There are many people, and they are intelligent, who would do just that. It’s not a matter of intellect, they simply don’t want to think about it on the next level. Why? Because at the surface level this reporter gives them what they want: a warm moral blanket. It is the reassurance that the reader is a good person. This is the addiction the left creates.

    You can only go to them to receive the balm, because any other perspective is evil; you’re a bad person for even questioning what they say. This is the comfort zone otherwise intelligent people placed themselves in, and woe to the person who tries to pry them away. No rational argument counters this emotional safety.

    This is excellent.

    • #20
  21. Theodoric of Freiberg Inactive
    Theodoric of Freiberg
    @TheodoricofFreiberg

    Joseph Stanko: The regulation actually would have cost relatively few mining jobs and would have created nearly as many new jobs on the regulatory side

    This really does say all you need to know about liberals.

    • #21
  22. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    Theodoric of Freiberg (View Comment):

    Joseph Stanko: The regulation actually would have cost relatively few mining jobs and would have created nearly as many new jobs on the regulatory side

    This really does say all you need to know about liberals.

    This reminds me of the OSHA majors at my alma mater. They didn’t strike me as particularly bright, but they always used to brag that the average bachelor’s graduate in that major earned $70k/year. I remember thinking–if regulators with only a 4-year degree from a non-elite university can earn more than the average worker in the industry they regulate, then won’t the regulators win converts from the industry, thus making the regulator obsolete?–

    My brain hurts. I should have been an OSHA major.

    • #22
  23. profdlp Inactive
    profdlp
    @profdlp

    KC Mulville (View Comment):
    What would you say regulators produce?

    I’m not allowed to say, what with the CoC and all…

    • #23
  24. Ryan M(cPherson) Inactive
    Ryan M(cPherson)
    @RyanM

    Cato Rand (View Comment):

    I don’t think that’s actually right. There are some government functions that involve solving collective action problems or free rider problems that actually produce net value I think. The military is an obvious example. In the regulatory sphere, I actually think some environmental regulation qualifies. So I don’t think you can say it never happens. But WaPo gave the impression that the bureaucrat who decides what angles the bananas can be curved at adds value just because we call what he does a “job.” I think we’re pretty well past the point of diminishing returns in the regulatory jobs category in most substantive areas — even in those substantive areas where there were any returns to begin with.

    Ok, I’ll grant some government positions as being necessary.  I won’t go so far as to say they produce anything, although it could certainly be argued that some do produce stability.  There can be no free market, for instance, without the creation and enforcement of laws.  And yes, the military certainly helps to create stability.  As far as regulation, though – it seems that the best thing a regulator can do is attempt to minimize the harm created by his own regulations…  and eliminating the regulations in their entirety would do a better job.  I am inclined to think of Coase, and suggest that virtually all (or certainly most) regulation would better be handled by tort law.

    • #24
  25. rod Inactive
    rod
    @rod

    Good post, good example. The press is full of “news” like this. My solution: NEVER read the WaPO, the NYT, the LAT, etc., etc.,  etc.

    • #25
  26. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    Ryan M(cPherson) (View Comment):
    Ok, I’ll grant some government positions as being necessary. I won’t go so far as to say they produce anything, although it could certainly be argued that some do produce stability. There can be no free market, for instance, without the creation and enforcement of laws. And yes, the military certainly helps to create stability. As far as regulation, though – it seems that the best thing a regulator can do is attempt to minimize the harm created by his own regulations… and eliminating the regulations in their entirety would do a better job. I am inclined to think of Coase, and suggest that virtually all (or certainly most) regulation would better be handled by tort law.

    In “The Problem of Social Cost” (which I assume is what you’re referring to) Coase considers the situation of a zero transaction cost environment.  The kinds of collective action and free rider issues I’m talking about are the farthest thing from a zero transaction cost environment.

    • #26
  27. Richard Easton Coolidge
    Richard Easton
    @RichardEaston

    Yes Minister clip of a hospital with no patients.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eyf97LAjjcY

    • #27
  28. Man With the Axe Inactive
    Man With the Axe
    @ManWiththeAxe

    Ryan M(cPherson) (View Comment):
    As far as regulation, though – it seems that the best thing a regulator can do is attempt to minimize the harm created by his own regulations… and eliminating the regulations in their entirety would do a better job. I am inclined to think of Coase, and suggest that virtually all (or certainly most) regulation would better be handled by tort law.

    One type of extreme transactions costs in the Coasian framework is the complete inability to bargain. So for an extreme example, we need regulations to compel drivers to drive on the right, because it would be too costly to try to bargain with each driver as to which side he wants to drive on.

    Other regulations might fit this description.

    • #28
  29. Cato Rand Inactive
    Cato Rand
    @CatoRand

    Man With the Axe (View Comment):

    Ryan M(cPherson) (View Comment):
    As far as regulation, though – it seems that the best thing a regulator can do is attempt to minimize the harm created by his own regulations… and eliminating the regulations in their entirety would do a better job. I am inclined to think of Coase, and suggest that virtually all (or certainly most) regulation would better be handled by tort law.

    One type of extreme transactions costs in the Coasian framework is the complete inability to bargain. So for an extreme example, we need regulations to compel drivers to drive on the right, because it would be too costly to try to bargain with each driver as to which side he wants to drive on.

    Other regulations might fit this description.

    Precisely.

    • #29
  30. blood thirsty neocon Inactive
    blood thirsty neocon
    @bloodthirstyneocon

    Living in China made me realize the importance of regulations. You can’t drink the water; you can’t see the sky; people drive crazy. We should not scoff too much at regulations. Libertarians who say that the market will regulate itself need to spend some time in China.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.