Skip to content

Quote of the day: Linear algebra and the debt deal

Rep. Thomas Massie on why he voted for the debt ceiling deal:

“The engineer and problem-solver in me wanted to vote for it and the politician did not. By engineering, I’m thinking of calculus and linear algebra. When I look at this logically and mathematically, the derivative is in the right direction.”

Okey doke. Whatever it takes, I guess.

25 thoughts on “Quote of the day: Linear algebra and the debt deal

    1. HokieAnnie

      Indeed a bunch of years ago I worked for an engineering society, they are too rigid and refuse to shift as the known facts shift. UGH.

  1. different_name

    You can tell when "populists" want their base to tune out. They say things like that rather than "line go down is good."

    And as an engineer, allow me to say we need fewer engineers in politics. I think the base problem is coming from a field where problems frequently do have only one or a few correct answers to one where "correct" is impossibly vague and "winning" has nothing to do with "correct" leads to bad, bad decisions.

    But beyond that, engineering attracts way too many arrogant, dogmatic shitheads who are incapable of realizing expertise in one domain does not confer expertise in unrelated fields. Please, keep us out of politics.

    1. MikeTheMathGuy

      "...way too many arrogant, dogmatic s***heads who are incapable of realizing expertise in one domain does not confer expertise in unrelated fields." Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that tendency is not confined to engineers. (And not new, either -- Socrates called out people like that over 2400 years ago in Plato's "Apology".)

  2. ScentOfViolets

    Well, at least he put linear algebra up front and center instead of way up back in the bleachers. I don't know why it seems to be downrated all the time; arguably, linear algebra is the most important bit of math because it is the most used bit of math.

  3. raoul

    An intellectual Republican? I did not even know they existed. Believe or not, I understand what he is saying. Basically, the level of growth is curtailed so that’s a net win for him (and why KD is sour puss on the matter). I will say this, the level of growth the last few years is unsustainable and should only happen in crisis situation (e.g. Covid). If one looks at American history, we see the greatest government growth during crisis and then retrenchment (Civil War, WW2, whathever the hell the 60s were).

    1. ScentOfViolets

      All they have to know is hey, did you notice that smart thing he said included the word 'right'?

    2. jte21

      Sounds like someone's throwin' around some fancy book larnin'! How did he get elected in a Republican district acting like he knows shit like this?

    3. kennethalmquist

      Even if you understand calculus, which the majority of the population does not, the phrase is pretty much meaningless.

      1) What is the mathematical function he is referring to? Presumably a function which maps a year to a budget amount, in which case we aren't doing regular calculus but instead an obscure branch of mathematics known as the calculus of finite differences. (Normal calculus doesn't deal with functions that take integer parameters.)

      2) Which derivative are we talking about? First? Second? He doesn't say.

      3) What does he consider to be the right direction? Again he doesn't say.

      Since he is a Republican, I'm guessing he is trying to say that the rate of growth in government spending is falling (the second derivative is negative), but he doesn't say that.

      1. Salamander

        It's like Star Trek technobabble. Use a bunch of scientific words randomly, mixed with made up nonsense to further the plot.

  4. jte21

    So what he's saying is that he didn't like it "politically" because it averts a crisis that would have harmed Biden going into an election year, but "logically" he was ok with it because it throws a few people off welfare and thus bends the spending curve downwards (his "derivative"?) somewhat? But that's not even true -- yes, it tightens work requirements on an small segment of SNAP recipients, but came nowhere close to the massive cuts the MAGA choads wanted in discretionary spending.

  5. Jasper_in_Boston

    He's one of the stupidest people in Congress. Which is saying something. And yes, I realize he went to MIT. Which means approximately nothing.

  6. rick_jones

    Okey doke. Whatever it takes, I guess.

    Sounds like the same sort of thinking one might use when picking the “best” trendline to use in a chart.

  7. MikeTheMathGuy

    When I teach intro calculus, I tell my students a rule of thumb: any time a politician, high-ranking military officer, or business leader mentions the second derivative, they are trying to mislead you.

    Massie says: "the derivative is in the right direction." Direction of the derivative -- that's a second derivative. Mission accomplished, I guess?

  8. ScentOfViolets

    BTW -- and totally off-topic -- does anybody out there have a fondness for a particular intro to LA? As I recall, we went with Hoffman. Actually, it's not as i recall, because I still have the textbook, very well-thumbed.

  9. bouncing_b

    Course, this is the guy whose 2021 Christmas card showed his whole family posing with assault rifles in front of their tree. Guns are his passion. Maybe because the debt ceiling doesn't involve guns, he could be rational about it? (Not right, but rational).

  10. Creigh Gordon

    the basic problem is that he doesn't understand that private debt and public debt are two separate things and public debt payable in money that the public creates out of thin air has never burdened anyone and never will.

Comments are closed.