Zombie Lie
By Barry Ritholtz - May 10th, 2011, 10:30AM
zombie lien. A false statement that keeps getting repeated no matter how often it has been refuted.
~~~
Example Citations:
Most of the biosphere cannot see the infosphere; it is invisible, a parallel universe humming with ghostly inhabitants. But they are not ghosts to us—not anymore. We humans, alone among the earth’s organic creatures, live in both worlds at once. It is as though, having long coexisted with the unseen, we have begun to develop the needed extrasensory perception. We are aware of the many species of information. We name their types sardonically, as though to reassure ourselves that we understand: urban myths and zombie lies.
—James Gleick, “What Defines a Meme?,” Smithsonian magazine, May 1, 2011~~~On Social Security, Simpson is repeating a zombie lie — that is, one of those misstatements that keeps being debunked, but keeps coming back.—Paul Krugman, “Zombies Have Already Killed The Deficit Commission,” The New York Times, June 21, 2010
This is an interesting Word Spy observation of a new grammatical idiom — a falsehood that will not go away.
I guess Zombie Economics is a broad based application of Zombie Lies. See Supply Side is a perfect example of this.
Tweet
Facebook
Reddit
Digg this!
May 10th, 2011 at 10:46 am
AGNOTOLOGY: Derived from the Greek root agnosis, it is “the study of culturally constructed ignorance , purposefully created by special interest groups working hard to create confusion and suppress the truth.”
Example: People always assume that if someone doesn’t know something, it’s because they haven’t paid attention or haven’t yet figured it out,” Proctor says. “But ignorance also comes from people
literally suppressing truth—or drowning it out—or trying to make
it so confusing that people stop caring about what’s true and
what’s not.”
May 10th, 2011 at 10:48 am
Barry – care to share what the Simpson lie is?
~~~
BR: Those are examples of grammatical usage — this is about the word “ZOMBIE LIE” as part of the modern idiom, not the specific content
May 10th, 2011 at 10:53 am
In the the referenced article Krugman tells us that everything is cool with SS due to the Trust Fund which is overflowing with money.
I stopped believing in the Trust Fund about the same time I had my first doubts about Santa Claus. But if you’re a Truster, just sit back, chill and enjoy.
May 10th, 2011 at 11:00 am
On Social Security, Simpson is repeating a zombie lie — that is, one of those misstatements that keeps being debunked, but keeps coming back.
—Paul Krugman, “Zombies Have Already Killed The Deficit Commission,” The New York Times, June 21, 2010
AGNOTOLOGY: Derived from the Greek root agnosis, it is “the study of culturally constructed ignorance , purposefully created by special interest groups working hard to create confusion and suppress the truth.”
~~
leave it to Krugman, to be one of the, foremost, practioners of ‘Agnotolgy’..
May 10th, 2011 at 11:02 am
flip, “Where’s that ‘Edit’ Function?
3 (III) o’s in ‘Agnotolgy’ .. Agnotology ~
May 10th, 2011 at 11:10 am
Zombie lies:
Tax cuts increase revenues
Ronald Reagan cut taxes
The private sector is better/cheaper/more efficient than the government
The US is a free/freedom-loving country
Human activities cannot significantly alter the environment
Clean coal
Safe nuclear
May 10th, 2011 at 11:31 am
The newest zombie lies:
For war there is no limit to the expenitures.
The “defense budget/authorization mark” : perpetual mobilization for the most “unlikely contingency”, which require the most costly weapons, tactics and contractor support.
Yesterday’s post to the House Armed Services Committee Web Site.
But the HASC raised overseas contingencies, mostly O&M by $1,097M to $116,78oM.
Admin Request : $616,049M
Mark: $616,348M
CBO could not see a relationship of O&M and “readiness”.
Subset zombie lie:
Quadrennial Defense Revieiw (QDR) fictions should not be constrained by raiding the future of the US for the most unlikely contingencies.
Mark language after pg 377: “QDR should be based upon a process unconstrained by budgetary influences so that such influences do not determine or limit its outcome.”
The QDR and the marks not constrained by logic and proportion.
May 10th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
The Zombie lies on SS is tied into the use of “entitlements” to characterize programs taxpayers have been paying into for their whole working life, well, except for the rich who take their income so its not subject payoll taxes.
It’s all part of the program to use the trust fund for ordinary government financing instead of the rich having to pay the taxes they’ve been shirking the past decade.
May 10th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Wishfull thinking… Conservative or liberal fads…
Thanks for the article by James Gleick, much more interesting than the subject at hand…..
I’m having an anxiety attack right now. is up really up, and down really down…? The one thing I’m certain of is that, “The ratio of douche bags is constant….”
:-)
Best regards,
Econolicious
May 10th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Zombie Economics is what you get after practicing Voodoo Economics for too long. ;-)
May 10th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Hugh,
“In the the referenced article Krugman tells us that everything is cool with SS due to the Trust Fund which is overflowing with money. I stopped believing in the Trust Fund about the same time I had my first doubts about Santa Claus.”
What’s “believing” have to do with it ? The Social Security Trust Fund is right here:
http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/investheld.cgi
May 10th, 2011 at 1:00 pm
Joe Friday,
there’s a difference between ‘Cash’ and ‘the Promise of Future Payments’ (I.O.U.s) ..
re: SS ‘Trust Fund’, Cash went in, was taken out, and Spent, and I.O.U.s (backed by the same people, and their ‘offspring’, that sent the Cash) were put in its place..
those “I.O.U.s”, now, are, only, ‘Promises of Future Taxation’..
I’d be hard-press to believe that that, above, is inaccurate, but, if you can ‘show me the Error’, please do..
May 10th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
I was doing some research into what really ties fiat currency to any value at all, and the answer seems to be that the only thing that fiat currency is firmly tied to in any way is the settlement of tax obligations. $1 may be worth a lot or a little, but pretty much the only thing it is guaranteed to do is be able to extinguish $1 worth of US tax obligations.
Obviously, changes in the tax law and the possibility of interest charges and the definition of tax obligations as a proportion of income makes a difference to how “rock solid” the tie is, but it definitely changed my perspective on fiat currencies a bit. As long as a substantial portion of the world’s money is subject to US taxation, the USD will be a currency in demand (there are other reasons for demand, too, but this is one I had not, until recently, considered).
May 10th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
@Mark E Hoffer
those “I.O.U.s”, now, are, only, ‘Promises of Future Taxation’..
How would it be any different if the SS trust fund had piled cash up in a giant vault somewhere? The same amount of debt would still be owed by the USG; the same amount of borrowing would have occurred, and the same amount of future taxation would be required. The amount of money you pay back in the future doesn’t change just because you borrowed it from a different entity.
When you hear somebody say they want to eliminate social security, what they’re really saying is “Remember back in the Reagan administration when they increased the FICA rates? That was just a giant LIE – it was really a just a massive retroactive regressive tax increase.”
May 10th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
“How would it be any different if the SS trust fund had piled cash up in a giant vault somewhere?”
Grunschev,
That is a Good Q: .
though, I find this.. “…The same amount of debt would still be owed by the USG; the same amount of borrowing would have occurred, and the same amount of future taxation would be required…”
unlikely.
Simply, a Polity ‘astute’ enough to demand that its ~”Cash is kept whole”, is, (more?) likely to have kept a Watchful Eye on their Representatives, no?
if so, it is probable that ‘Taxing’ & ‘Spending’ activities, thereof, would have followed a different course, yes?
~~
this.. “…“Remember back in the Reagan administration when they increased the FICA rates? – it was really a just a massive regressive tax increase.” though, could be, effectually, argued..
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thereof
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/effectually
May 10th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
@ Mark E. Hoffer
I am having a hard time distinguishing between SS Trust Funds and cash. Are they not both backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. Is there any difference?
May 10th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
zombie media
n. media outlets or individual members of the media that repeatedly disseminate zombie lies.
May 11th, 2011 at 2:49 am
Let’s apply this simple test to SS: if all new funding to SS is cut off would it be possible to go on paying pensions to current retirees?
If the answer is no (and it is) then SS is not funded but is a pay-as-you-go system.
May 11th, 2011 at 7:38 pm
Mark,
“there’s a difference between ‘Cash’ and ‘the Promise of Future Payments’ (I.O.U.s)”
The Social Security Trust Fund does not hold any “I.O.U.s”.
~
“SS ‘Trust Fund’, Cash went in, was taken out, and Spent”
That’s how bonds work.
~
“and I.O.U.s (backed by the same people, and their ‘offspring’, that sent the Cash) were put in its place”
The Social Security Trust Fund does not hold any “I.O.U.s”.
~
“I’d be hard-press to believe that that, above, is inaccurate”
It is inaccurate.
May 11th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Hugh,
“Let’s apply this simple test to SS: if all new funding to SS is cut off would it be possible to go on paying pensions to current retirees?”
Of course.
However, it is a silly premise.
May 11th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
For more see:
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/research_sub129.html
In particular:
The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program
from Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 70 No. 3 (released August 2010)
by Stephen C. Goss
which is a available online outlines the Social Security Trust Fund exhaustion as being at the earliest in some time in 2027, the median assumption at 2037 and the optimistic low cost assumption at no exhaustion during the next 74 years. Even after the trust fund exhaustion, without changes tax incomes ie. employer contributions etc. would fund up to 76% of the current benefits and to my recollection to make up the remainder would be approx. 1.8% GDP (I am not certain on that number – see Chart 5).
Interestingly the potential long term viability of the current benefit structure is challenged by the permanent shift in the workers/beneficiary ratios represented by the changing demographics in the 20th century. The change in ratios is as a result of change in adjusted (survival to 10+ years) Total Fertility Rate from 3 to the current 2 – see Chart 10.
Either way changes are going to be required. It is to be hoped that Congress can get its act together before 2027 to address this and not be faced with an emergency situation like the late 1970s early 1980s when the trust funds were running a deficit.
May 12th, 2011 at 1:15 am
Someone mentioned that this whole Social Security issue is moot because of the “full faith and credit of the US Government”. I think they’re right, we’d pay to ensure a generation or two doesn’t starve.
Somehow, the conversation, not necessarily here, has veered into a belief that as a nation, we’d simply cut off hundreds of millions of people simply because we’ve run up the national debt.
That woudn’t happen. Evidence? Has anyone noticed how fast the Ryan plan sunk once a few adults managed to actually read it? Imagine if that was another round of serious talk about privatizing Social Security. It would terrify the elderly more than the GOP managed to scare them about Obama before the ’10 elections.
Now some smart guy is going to say “the market…the market..will save us all….”
I’d like to point out that before Alan cut interest rates to nothing, seniors had a second stream of reliable income–interest-bearing investments. We all know how that worked out. Now the only game in town is the stock market. We’re all waiting for the “best and the brightest” to royally screw up our financial system again in another 5-7 years. A dip in the value of my 401k is hopefully recoverable, given my age. A dip in the value of a friend of mine’s 401k, he happens to be 66, sent him back to work because his income took a nosedive. Yes his portfolio is just about back; but did you read the earlier sentence on the “best and brightest”? His thinking is that he’ll have to keep working and saving because Wall Street is going to screw him again.
Can anyone opine about the material effects on our economy if we ended Social Security; but managed to pay down our national debt by 2/3? What would that look like after 5 years? How many homeless elderly, begging for food? How many more bank and investment accounts would have to be drained in order to help take care of parents? The massive upheval in the healthcare system–no money for pharma co-pays, no money for states to prime the pump for state-run Medicare and other health services? How many nursing homes and home nursing services would close because there’d be no money to pay for them?
If we want to make a splash on the debt, ax the Bush Tax Cuts. If we want to fix Social Security, let’s treat it like a Wall Street bank and give it a blank check. In the long run, we get more value out of a healthy Social Security than we did in saving AIG.
May 12th, 2011 at 1:47 am
formerlawyer posted:
“…the Social Security Trust Fund exhaustion as being at the earliest in some time in 2027, the median assumption at 2037 and the optimistic low cost assumption at no exhaustion during the next 74 years”
And both the ‘High-Cost’ and the ‘Intermediate’ forecasts have been repeatedly WRONG. Only the ‘Low-Cost’ forecast has been repeatedly correct, and it indicates Social Security is solvent through 2085 and the actuaries only do 75-year forecasts.
~
“Either way changes are going to be required.”
By what possible reliable criteria ?
~
“It is to be hoped that Congress can get its act together before 2027 to address this and not be faced with an emergency situation like the late 1970s early 1980s when the trust funds were running a deficit.”
Actually, in 14 of the past 75 years, Social Security paid out more in benefits than the government collected in payroll taxes. That’s a feature, not a design flaw.
May 12th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
My comment was directed more at the demographic threat to social security ie. the workers vs the beneficiary ratios. I was unaware that the low-cost forecast was more reliable. In that case then changes may not be required.
May 12th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
I’m looking forward to the worker-beneficiary relationship plummeting. That is the sure recipe for a productivity boom. If workers get scarce enough we might see another Renaissance or Industrial Revolution, both outcomes of soaring worker-beneficiary ratios.
May 13th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
The worker-to-beneficiary ratio is a false issue.
Even though there will be about 79 dependents (children and retirees) for every 100 workers by 2030 compared to 71 dependents per 100 workers in 1995, in 1965 the ratio was a much higher at 95 to 100.
Back when all the boomers were still small children, their parents and the government found ways to provide for them, build lots of new schools, and later finance expensive college educations for many of them.
If America then with a much smaller economy could sustain such a large share of nonworkers over half a century ago, the retirement of the baby boomers should be quite manageable if the nation would continue to pursue policies that promote strong economic growth (Hint: It’s not tax cuts for the Rich & Corporate).