Why Conservatives don't care if the bailout was a success

[tongodeon]

One of the best things I've written in the last year (if I may say so) is this post on John Haidt's Five Moral Dimensions. I keep coming back to that post, mentally at least, because it explains why people have such a hard time seeing eye to eye politically.

Take the TARP "bailout", often inaccurately characterized as a $700 billion giveway to

Comments

[ctd]

The part about keeping us safe from total systemic collapse reminds me of a bit from Penn and Teller where they point out that the results of giving snake oil (I think they used homeopathy specifically) would get spun one of two ways:

1) If it doesn't work, "You didn't do it right/enough!"

2) If it works, It worked! We're awesome!

[tongodeon]

Snake oil gets sold that way because this is also true of legitimate fixes, which either do work or would have if they'd been followed through. That's why it's an intuitive, compelling argument.

For example the stimulus bill is different than TARP - it was larger, and it was just bucketloads of spending with no asset swaps or repayment - but even that seems to have been a good move.

[ctd]

The lede of your link "seems to have been a good move" is exactly snake oil option 1, above:

Now that unemployment has topped 10 percent, some liberal-leaning economists see confirmation of their warnings that the $787 billion stimulus package President Obama signed into law last February was way too small. The economy needs a second big infusion, they say.

[tongodeon]

Well sure. That's what I said. If you're talking about a legitimate measure with a legitimate effect, it's entirely reasonable to discuss whether the effect has been sufficient or whether it would have been prudent to apply a greater amount to produce a better effect.

That's different from the "snake oil" that you brought up. *Any* amount of snake oil is a waste, because snake oil is either a worthless placebo or a dangerous patent medicine.

What I'm trying to say is that you don't evaluate the efficacy of an intervention based on whether or not they're using this argument, which can be applied equally well to both real and sham interventions.