3 ms·

> Majority of those surveyed who are connected to the Chicago School. How so? The majority of those surveyed are not from Chicago. According to the About secti

> Majority of those surveyed who are connected to the Chicago School. How so? The majority of those surveyed are not from Chicago. According to the About section: > ...our panel was chosen to include distinguished experts with a keen interest in public policy from the main areas of economics, to be geographically diverse, and to include older and younger scholars. As with the IGM’s US panel, the experts are all outstanding researchers in their fields. The panel includes recipients of top national and international prizes in economics, fellows of the Econometric society and the European Economic Association, members of distinguished national and international policymaking bodies in Europe, recipients of significant grants for economic research, highly accomplished affiliates and program directors of the Centre for Economic Policy Research and the National Bureau of Economic Research, and past and current editors of leading academic journals in the profession. > It's about not allowing the ISPs to slow down other traffic. What you think a policy “is about” and its actual consequences are very different things.

monocasa 8y ago
> How so? From the About section: Chicago school is a broad term for an economics ideology, like "Austrian". Those surveyed are part of that ideology. > What you think a policy “is about” and its actual consequences are two very different things. So tell me then, how does this magical go faster lane work from a technical perspective, and how is net neutrality not letting them turn it on? Please be specific.
- throwaway37585 8y ago
  > Chicago school is a broad term for an economics ideology, like "Austrian". I know. > Those surveyed are part of that ideology. I’ll repeat my question: How so? > So tell me then, how does this magical go faster lane work from a technical perspective, and how is net neutrality not letting them turn it on? Please be specific. I don’t know what “magical” lane you’re referring to, since I don’t believe in magic. Are you trying to score rhetorical points by using such language? Does it make you feel better to attack strawmen?
  - monocasa 8y ago
    > How so? It's literally the point of the organization that did the survey; these economists are members of this organization. > I don’t know what “magical” lane you’re referring to, since I don’t believe in magic. Are you trying to score rhetorical points by using such language? Does it make you feel better to attack strawmen? You're the one being intentionally vague with "what you think a policy 'is about' and its actual consequences are very different things." I'm trying to get you to be specific concerning the technical details of your argument, but you seem to be fighting that pretty hard.
    - throwaway37585 8y ago
      > It's literally the point of the organization that did the survey What is “the point” of the organization that did the survey? > these economists are members of this organization. In the sense that they are surveyed by this organization? Do you mean that anyone who is surveyed by organization X belongs to X? > You’re the one being intentionally vague with "what you think a policy 'is about' and its actual consequences are very different things." I wasn’t being vague, much less intentionally. I was merely pointing out that what you (or I) think a policy “is about” is very different from its real-world consequences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences > I'm trying to get you to be specific concerning the technical details of your argument What “argument” of mine are you referring to? And why do you hold me to such high standards of “technical details”, which you don’t seem to apply to yourself? That’s just plain hypocrisy. > but you seem to be fighting that pretty hard. I honestly have no idea where you’re trying to go with this.

monocasa 8y ago

> How so? From the About section: Chicago school is a broad term for an economics ideology, like "Austrian". Those surveyed are part of that ideology. > What you think a policy “is about” and its actual consequences are two very different things. So tell me then, how does this magical go faster lane work from a technical perspective, and how is net neutrality not letting them turn it on? Please be specific.

throwaway37585 8y ago
> Chicago school is a broad term for an economics ideology, like "Austrian". I know. > Those surveyed are part of that ideology. I’ll repeat my question: How so? > So tell me then, how does this magical go faster lane work from a technical perspective, and how is net neutrality not letting them turn it on? Please be specific. I don’t know what “magical” lane you’re referring to, since I don’t believe in magic. Are you trying to score rhetorical points by using such language? Does it make you feel better to attack strawmen?
- monocasa 8y ago
  > How so? It's literally the point of the organization that did the survey; these economists are members of this organization. > I don’t know what “magical” lane you’re referring to, since I don’t believe in magic. Are you trying to score rhetorical points by using such language? Does it make you feel better to attack strawmen? You're the one being intentionally vague with "what you think a policy 'is about' and its actual consequences are very different things." I'm trying to get you to be specific concerning the technical details of your argument, but you seem to be fighting that pretty hard.
  - throwaway37585 8y ago
    > It's literally the point of the organization that did the survey What is “the point” of the organization that did the survey? > these economists are members of this organization. In the sense that they are surveyed by this organization? Do you mean that anyone who is surveyed by organization X belongs to X? > You’re the one being intentionally vague with "what you think a policy 'is about' and its actual consequences are very different things." I wasn’t being vague, much less intentionally. I was merely pointing out that what you (or I) think a policy “is about” is very different from its real-world consequences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences > I'm trying to get you to be specific concerning the technical details of your argument What “argument” of mine are you referring to? And why do you hold me to such high standards of “technical details”, which you don’t seem to apply to yourself? That’s just plain hypocrisy. > but you seem to be fighting that pretty hard. I honestly have no idea where you’re trying to go with this.