3 ms·

So, would you say that "protectionist trade restrictions, massive stimulus spending and bailouts of financial and automotive firms deemed 'too big to fail.'" fr

by Empact 17y ago

So, would you say that "protectionist trade restrictions, massive stimulus spending and bailouts of financial and automotive firms deemed 'too big to fail.'" from the past year are positive, or have increased economic freedom? If so, why not address those points rather than deploy ad hominems?

camccann 17y ago
Probably because there's not really much substance to address. Most commentary on "economics" is barely-disguised political advocacy, starting with a conclusion and then working backwards to come up with arguments, and this article is even more egregious than most. Lots of argument-by-assertion and emotionally-loaded phrasing, and a general attitude of having all the answers. I expect it wouldn't be too hard to find a similar article from an "opposing position" with all the same muddled thinking and question begging, but what would that really accomplish? This sort of nonsense goes firmly in the "not even wrong" bin. Stuff like this is more about social status-seeking and in-group identity than about the ostensible topic.
ubernostrum 17y ago
If so, why not address those points rather than deploy ad hominems? I don't see it as ad hominem. Talking about "economic freedom" is basically pointless unless one comes out and admits what definition of "economic freedom" is being used. The WSJ story notably doesn't do this, but it's not terribly hard to infer that the economic principles applied are likely informed by the strongly right-leaning political views of the institutions behind the study. Or, putting it another way: the study attributes the "loss" of economic freedom largely to the response to the recent economic crisis. Which corresponds with a time when the political opponents of the sponsoring organizations had just cemented control of two out of three branches of the federal government. If the New York Times and other politically-left-leaning organizations published a study which claimed a drastic decline at the precise moment the Republican Party gained the same level of control, would you assume objectivity on their part?

by Empact 17y ago

camccann 17y ago

Probably because there's not really much substance to address. Most commentary on "economics" is barely-disguised political advocacy, starting with a conclusion and then working backwards to come up with arguments, and this article is even more egregious than most. Lots of argument-by-assertion and emotionally-loaded phrasing, and a general attitude of having all the answers. I expect it wouldn't be too hard to find a similar article from an "opposing position" with all the same muddled thinking and question begging, but what would that really accomplish? This sort of nonsense goes firmly in the "not even wrong" bin. Stuff like this is more about social status-seeking and in-group identity than about the ostensible topic.

ubernostrum 17y ago

If so, why not address those points rather than deploy ad hominems? I don't see it as ad hominem. Talking about "economic freedom" is basically pointless unless one comes out and admits what definition of "economic freedom" is being used. The WSJ story notably doesn't do this, but it's not terribly hard to infer that the economic principles applied are likely informed by the strongly right-leaning political views of the institutions behind the study. Or, putting it another way: the study attributes the "loss" of economic freedom largely to the response to the recent economic crisis. Which corresponds with a time when the political opponents of the sponsoring organizations had just cemented control of two out of three branches of the federal government. If the New York Times and other politically-left-leaning organizations published a study which claimed a drastic decline at the precise moment the Republican Party gained the same level of control, would you assume objectivity on their part?