{"id":317,"date":"2006-11-03T10:26:09","date_gmt":"2006-11-02T23:26:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.somethinkodd.com\/oddthinking\/2006\/11\/03\/if-this-wasnt-a-hypothetical-question-would-it-raise-interest-rates\/"},"modified":"2006-11-03T10:26:09","modified_gmt":"2006-11-02T23:26:09","slug":"if-this-wasnt-a-hypothetical-question-would-it-raise-interest-rates","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.somethinkodd.com\/oddthinking\/2006\/11\/03\/if-this-wasnt-a-hypothetical-question-would-it-raise-interest-rates\/","title":{"rendered":"If this wasn&#8217;t a hypothetical question, would it raise interest rates?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>I&#8217;ve never had much respect when I hear the claim from politicians (and at least once, from a singer) that they don&#8217;t answer hypothetical questions.<\/p>\n<p>I can see no logical justification for that position. Considering hypotheticals is a core of intelligence.  It is a fundamental part of planning and risk management. It is a key skill that every politician &#8211; nay! every human &#8211; needs to survive.<\/p>\n<p>So why not answer hypotheticals? I don&#8217;t think it is supported by rational logic. The real reason is to avoid having to answer tricky &#8211; sometimes trap &#8211; questions.<\/p>\n<div class=\"aside\">Many years ago, John Bannon, then Premier of South Australia, was being investigated for a inappropriate act he denied committing. (I forget the details.)<\/p>\n<p>A reporter asked &#8220;If you are found guilty by the inquiry, will you resign?&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>It was a tricky question. If he answered &#8220;No&#8221; he was showing he had no respect for the legal system investigating him. If he answered &#8220;Yes&#8221; the message he would (unfairly) convey is that he was preparing for a guilty verdict.<\/p>\n<p>Bannon understood this, and fought back with the traditional example of a trick question. He answered the question by asking another: &#8220;Have you stopped beating your wife?&#8221; This question has a similar sting.<\/p>\n<p>I was amused to see that some members of the press had the last word &#8211; accusing him of belittling the problem of domestic violence!<\/p><\/div>\n<p>The reason this issue of the legitimacy of hypothetical questions comes up, is that the news media extracted a sound-bite on Tuesday from this exchange in parliament (<a href=\"http:\/\/www.aph.gov.au\/hansard\/reps\/dailys\/dr301006.pdf\">Ref<\/a>):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><b>Mr SWAN\u00e2\u20ac\u201d<\/b> My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, is it the case that if there is a rate rise next week it will be the eighth stitch in time, which will have cost someone with a $300,000 mortgage an extra $383 a month in repayments?<\/p>\n<p><b>Mr HOWARD\u00e2\u20ac\u201d<\/b>The question is hypothetical. However, I am very happy to answer, but I tell you something that is not hypothetical: interest rates will always be lower under the coalition than under the Labor Party. That is not hypothetical; that is a proven fact.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Wow, that&#8217;s clearly the response of an adroit politician.<\/p>\n<p>First, he managed to spout a sound-bite that was widely broadcast by the media &#8211; where the original question he was answering was ignored.<\/p>\n<p>Secondly, he gives a classic example of avoiding the (grandstanding) question by protesting it is a hypothetical &#8211; a position I don&#8217;t support. <\/p>\n<p>Then he claims he is happy to answer the question &#8211; despite failing to do so!<\/p>\n<p>Finally, he is proposing that if you assume in the future that a coalition government is in power, interest rates will be lower compared to the case if you assume a Labor government is in power,<\/p>\n<p>That, Mr. Howard, sounds <em>exactly<\/em> like a hypothetical to me!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I&#8217;ve never had much respect when I hear the claim from politicians (and at least once, from a singer) that they don&#8217;t answer hypothetical questions. I give an recent extreme example from Australian politics.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_s2mail":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[24,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-317","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cathartic-rant","category-observation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.somethinkodd.com\/oddthinking\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/317","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.somethinkodd.com\/oddthinking\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.somethinkodd.com\/oddthinking\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.somethinkodd.com\/oddthinking\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.somethinkodd.com\/oddthinking\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=317"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.somethinkodd.com\/oddthinking\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/317\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.somethinkodd.com\/oddthinking\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=317"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.somethinkodd.com\/oddthinking\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=317"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.somethinkodd.com\/oddthinking\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=317"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}