3 ms·

That apparently doesn't stop self interested economists going on an academia-themed anti-union rant. Your promotion of this odd conspiracy about bourgeoisie ca

That apparently doesn't stop self interested economists going on an academia-themed anti-union rant. Your promotion of this odd conspiracy about bourgeoisie capitalist economists being bought out by think tanks and promoting anti-labor, pro-capitalist propaganda is just completely baffling to me. You did the same in a previous thread about minimum wages and here again you insinuated in a different post about how Dean Baker's motivation for this paper (being an ACA supporter) must be conspiring to drive down wages of the medical profession to make ACA cheaper. I just don't know how one can respond to you.

crdoconnor 11y ago
>Your promotion of this odd conspiracy about bourgeoisie capitalist economists being bought out by think tanks This economist literally works for a think tank and his paper is published on that think tank's website. For it to be an actual conspiracy that he is bought out I think it would have to actually be hidden from view somehow. I can only speculate as to his motivations behind attacking doctors in this paper, but there isn't a shadow of a doubt that he is attacking them. You literally can't blame doctors' wages on the rise of income inequality if they've been falling. If the paper actually said that they were rising I could have understood but it doesn't. Dean Baker is just doing a rather pathetic exercise in misdirection by talking about wages in other countries and how doctor's wages haven't necessarily been falling as fast as everybody else's. >I just don't know how one can respond to you. Believe me, the feeling's mutual. Apparently some people are impressed by the thin veneer of academic pseudo-legitimacy that comes from putting a couple of equations in a PDF and turn off the critical thinking section in their skulls.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  "Falling" is of little analytical meaning without a relative benchmark. You weren't displaying critical thought, you were engaging in a trite dismissal and then extrapolating an outlandish motive.
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    >You weren't displaying critical thought, you were engaging in a trite dismissal I read the paper and researched its claims before attacking it. Did you do that before accusing me of trite dismissal?

crdoconnor 11y ago

>Your promotion of this odd conspiracy about bourgeoisie capitalist economists being bought out by think tanks This economist literally works for a think tank and his paper is published on that think tank's website. For it to be an actual conspiracy that he is bought out I think it would have to actually be hidden from view somehow. I can only speculate as to his motivations behind attacking doctors in this paper, but there isn't a shadow of a doubt that he is attacking them. You literally can't blame doctors' wages on the rise of income inequality if they've been falling. If the paper actually said that they were rising I could have understood but it doesn't. Dean Baker is just doing a rather pathetic exercise in misdirection by talking about wages in other countries and how doctor's wages haven't necessarily been falling as fast as everybody else's. >I just don't know how one can respond to you. Believe me, the feeling's mutual. Apparently some people are impressed by the thin veneer of academic pseudo-legitimacy that comes from putting a couple of equations in a PDF and turn off the critical thinking section in their skulls.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
"Falling" is of little analytical meaning without a relative benchmark. You weren't displaying critical thought, you were engaging in a trite dismissal and then extrapolating an outlandish motive.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >You weren't displaying critical thought, you were engaging in a trite dismissal I read the paper and researched its claims before attacking it. Did you do that before accusing me of trite dismissal?