The Dumbest Post I've Ever Read from Andrew Sullivan

I've read him for years. I don't agree with him on much, but he's intermittently interesting, and it's good to get a variety of ideological perspectives.

But then I come across this post today. He writes:

Every time the government protects someone or some company from the consequences of their own economic profligacy, the chances of future profligacy increase. It's vital that the government let the Big Three automakers go down, and vital that only minimal help be given for those so greedy or so stupid that they took on loans they had no way to pay off.

We're in the middle of the greatest economic downturn in 75 years and Sullivan's version of keeping his eye on the ball is to point out a moral hazard? This is dogmatic allegiance to principle at its most reckless and stupid. It's hard to even know where to start.

The first sentence is nonsense. You could use this rationale to attack the merits of TANF funds, unemployment, or bankruptcy for that matter. Why not bring back debtors prison? That'll teach those damned bankrupt individuals and companies "the consequences of their own economic profligacy".

Secondly, it's "vital" that we let the Big Three fail? Why? Presumably (and we must presume because Sullivan provides zero rationale or analysis) so that we can teach companies what happens when they're run poorly. A fine lesson in the abstract to be sure. But this is no abstract situation. There are millions of jobs at stake. Millions of families and foreclosed homes.

His argument boils down to this: We need to increase unemployment and foreclosure rates by 50%, further depress housing prices, and drastically decrease domestic spending (we'll ignore the increased crime and host of other peripheral externalities) so that future companies and individuals can learn from all this misery and be less inclined to do it in the future. What noble adherence to principle.

Every time new medical advances are made to treat STI's (such as anti-retrovirals or HPV vaccine) I hear religious fundamentalists make a similar argument. If we treat the consequences of risky sex, oh how shall I put it....the chances of future profligacy increase. High risk sex is something to be discouraged right (just like risky borrowing)? So, if no effective treatments for HIV exist then people will be less likely to engage in behavior that makes contracting it possible. So, why doesn't Sullivan's argument hold here? Cause it's all about principle, right?.

Well, no actually. That would be silly, shortsighted, and cruel. If Sullivan wants to object to the auto-bailout, by all means make a case. Hell, I'm not totally sure I'm sold on the idea. But don't offer up some bullshit quote from an Economics 101 textbook and make it a substitute for an educated opinion, particularly when it concerns a complex issue that viscerally effects tens of millions of people.