Crybaby Economics
Nutcase Economics
Snake-Oil Economics
I think economics discussions here would be more fruitful and more pleasant if less pejorative were directed at one's debating opponents.
There is nothing wrong with using strong language to identify flaws in the arguments from the other side. (My term "Snake-Oil Economics" might be the same as George Bush's "Voodoo Economics" in his run against Reagan in 1988.) The terminology is legitimate, as long as the meaning is explained and fits the case where it's used. The proper response, if one disagrees, is to defend the one being called by the name (such as defending Reagan's tax-cutting economic theory in that 1988 primary campaign). Strong language is legitimate for adding emphasis.
Crybaby Economics: A benefit is demanded for someone which must be paid for by the whole society, or the whole nation or population. Corporate welfare and trade protectionism are good examples. A good classic example is that of the
Luddites in the early 1800s, who demanded that their jobs be saved from the threat of new technology. Obviously it would have imposed much higher costs onto the whole economy, to effectively subsidize their livelihood. Of course there are hundreds of other examples. It's perfectly reasonable to call such crybabies what they are. For some reason they have trouble understanding the damage they inflict onto the whole nation, and calling them a name to emphasize this might be what is necessary to shock them out of their delusionalism (at least in the long term if not the short term). Today's labor unions are guilty of similar economic fallacies, not recognizing the benefits to the economy of competition among all producers and the damage done by cartelism.
Nutcase Economics: These are cases where one is driven to deny obvious facts or truth, which are clearly plain to see. I used the term "nutcase" to describe someone who said that there are "no shortages" during the 2020-21 pandemic situation, where the nightly news regularly reported empty shelves throughout the nation, due to problems with transportation, the truck driver shortage, the cargo ships not being unloaded, etc. These "shortage" problems still persist, whether or not they have been partly relieved. For someone to say there are "no shortages" has to go into the "nutcase" category in face of the constant reporting of this every day in the news. Almost any outburst might come from an immigrant-bashing nativist who can't stand the idea of perhaps allowing more immigrant workers, which would help fix this problem. It would actually be more truthful to just admit that one is a xenophobe rather than deny the plain facts being reported every day on every network and every station.
Other examples of Nutcase Economics would be to deny obvious truths of economics, like the law of supply-and-demand, e.g., claiming that higher production cost has no impact on prices. Some demented employer-bashers, e.g., want to insist that higher labor cost makes no difference in output, and that all the same production and lower prices will continue, despite higher wages being imposed by law onto employers. They imagine that the greedy employers will then just be forced to pay the higher labor cost without any resulting change in their production, because they'll simply become less greedy and accept lower profit. Such flat
denial of supply-and-demand is a further example of Nutcase Economics.
Snake-Oil Economics: Some "trickle-down economics" might be in this category, if it means that tax cuts will automatically spur economic growth and generate such new production and profits that the total government revenue will increase rather than decrease. The key is the promise of magic-like outcomes resulting from the measures taken. The "
economic stimulus" promises are mostly in this category, claiming that if the government just spends more money, pouring funds into this or that program, to provide incomes to someone, then this generates new spending --
the multiplier effect -- where money is pumped into someone at point A, and this recipient goes out and spends it so someone else at point B gets increased income, who then spends it at point C, and the chain goes on and on generating new incomes everywhere and driving up the GDP, and everyone gets richer. By this reasoning, counterfeiters benefit the economy with the money they print -- as "economic stimulus" -- as long as that money continues to circulate.
FDR was a Snake-Oil salesman with his theory that destroying product, causing shortage, drives up the prices, so producers then make more money and everyone gets richer from this extra income generated to those producers who destroyed their product. This was done among the farmers, who were ordered to destroy their product in order to drive up prices -- dairy farmers were one example, and there were others who plowed their crops under in order to cause shortages.
Another version of this is the falsehood that you generate prosperity by curtailing spending outside your own community or nation, and instead keep all your spending within your group, such as the local community, or within the nation rather than spending it abroad. Because when the money goes "outside" our community or nation, it goes to waste, by stimulating the foreign economies rather than our own. Keeping your spending limited to your own group, even your own race or ethnicity, somehow then magically creates some new prosperity that otherwise would not exist if you just spent your money wherever it's convenient or where you can get the best deal. A radio talk-show host in San Diego is an example of this, claiming that everything bought in China is "junk" or "crap" because the money goes to China rather than being spent in America. So where you spend the money somehow changes what you're buying, turning it from something of value into "junk" because of where the money you're spending ends up.
There are many versions of Snake-Oil Economics, usually promoted by charlatans engaging in some kind of sophistry. Bush's "Voodoo Economics" might be another term for it.
Crybaby Panderers: These are believers in Crybaby Economics, in some sense, but they are not the crybabies per se, but apparently are sympathetic to them, for some unexplained reason. E.g., autoworkers and steelworkers are 2 examples who get much sympathy. Also some small farmers, including dairy farmers, gain extra pity, and it's not clear why these particular victims are selected for this special treatment at everyone else's expense. Somehow these particular groups are in need of special pity because they are high-profile producers of some kind. Also factory workers generally, or laid-off workers generally who are often factory workers. Maybe also fast-food workers, because they are so highly visible and recognized as minimum-wage victims.
And yet at the same time literally millions of poor people, consumers, are damaged by the higher costs imposed onto us all as a result of subsidizing these particular categories of producers we feel sorry for. Most of these high-profile producers are not the poorest but are in the middle-income category, far better off than millions of the consumers who must then pay the higher prices as a result of the special higher costs imposed onto us all in order to give special treatment to these select victim groups we think are entitled to higher incomes regardless of their lower value in the economy. Their lower value is perhaps due to their oversupply, or whatever the supply-and-demand factors may be. Even the low-paid fast-food workers are better off than a large percent of their customers who are even poorer than those workers.
So the crybaby-panderers cannot explain why they choose these particular victims to feel sorry for, and pander for, to increase their incomes, while at the same time ignoring the resulting higher cost burden imposed onto millions, in fact onto the entire population, tens or hundreds of millions of consumers, many of whom are poorer than the crybabies being pandered to and subsidized as victims.
There is nothing wrong with using strong language to describe this damage done to the economy, as long as the terms are defined and applied appropriately to cases which fit the definition.
