America may have the most geniuses, but that doesn't affect the average

Is the US media making Americans stupid? That's the question posed by this article at the Daily Clarity. My initial response would be "stupider, certainly, but maybe not stupid". It's a perfectly fine article, not terribly informative but certainly has some food for thought. My only problem is this point:

Firstly, let us state up front, we do not think Americans are a race of low intelligence or by nature intrinsically stupid. This is a common assertion from international critics of the US, but one that is easily countered by examining the history of technological innovation, medical research breakthroughs, and the alumni of America’s better universities.

Ummm, so what? Where are the statistics on average US IQ vs. other countries? How about our scores on international standardized tests? The point is that a few outliers don't represent a statistical mass. Put another way, the fact that a large number of highly intelligent and productive come from the US* isn't relevant when trying to assess the nation as a whole. Especially in elections, where all votes matter the same amount.

So just becase we may have produced some of the greatest technological breakthroughs in the US doesn't mean the whole country is smarter. Nor does the fact that Palin was so popular among some make the whole country dumber. Can't judge the whole by a few outliers.

Error rating: 4. Relatively minor error to the point of the article, but it's a big logical error.

-Enginerd

*For this to matter at all, one would at least need to show that there are a disproportionately large number of advances coming from the US. This might be the case, but it doesn't mean we're smarter. Just do a better job of fostering/funding new technologies.

We're doling out that "bad economy" line because the economy is bad

Donald Luskin at WaPo is apparently in the Phil Gramm camp, saying that the country has a lot of nerve bitching about the economy, and that it's really not so bad. In general, I actually agree, but with that rather crucial caveat that things are likely to get a whole lot worse before they get better. How much worse, nobody knows, but that's why we worry. A paragraph of the article which sums up the gist:

Things today just aren't that bad. Sure, there are trouble spots in the economy, as the government takeover of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and jitters about Wall Street firm Lehman Brothers, amply demonstrate. And unemployment figures are up a bit, too. None of this, however, is cause for depression -- or exaggerated Depression comparisons.

First, companies which own or guarantee $5 trillion dollars of mortgage debt are more than "trouble spots". Remember when Bernanke said that certain housing markets are "frothy"?
I'd like to focus on one particular statistic he cites:

Here's another one not to be too alarmed about: Obama is flat-out wrong when he frets on his campaign Web site that "the personal savings rate is now the lowest it's been since the Great Depression." The latest rate, for the second quarter of 2008, is 2.6 percent -- higher than the 1.9 percent rate that prevailed in the last quarter of Bill Clinton's presidency.

Here's a graph of the personal savings rate (from the St. Louis Fed):


Pretty fair guess that that spike is from the rebate checks. Anyway, Obama might get the exact statistic wrong but he gets the idea right. The personal savings rate has dropped steadily since 1980. People don't have money to save anymore.

People can use truthful statistics to lie, simply by selecting noise points. Luskin needs to get a more complete data set. Or he's a liar.

Error rating: 3

-Enginerd