4 ms·
Steven Levitt, Walter Block, and The Economist magazine are hardly representative of the full diversity of opinions of professional economists. You have one eco
by jacobolus 6y ago
Steven Levitt, Walter Block, and The Economist magazine are hardly representative of the full diversity of opinions of professional economists. You have one economist who spends his time moonlighting dubiously in a variety of fields he has no expertise in, one famous anti-government ideologue who works at a corporate-funded think tank (example quotation: "there is a presumption that all government employees are indeed guilty of a crime against humanity. This presumption can of course be rebutted in any number of ways, but, given that the unjust government is an organized institutional machine of aggression and initiatory violence, there is no doubt that any serious libertarian analysis ought to start out with this presumption as its basic premise"), and one center-right pro-free-market magazine written with no bylines by overconfident 20-something Oxbridge grads with limited life experience and limited subject-matter expertise.
- sampo 6y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_regulation#Economists'_views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_regulation#Economists'_vi...
- JAlexoid 6y agoIt's like saying that Nature(magazine) doesn't represent a diversity of opinions on evolution.
- jacobolus 6y agoWhat are you talking about? These two publications are not remotely comparable. Nature is a prestigious academic journal full of peer-reviewed science papers written by scientists (in various fields, including evolutionary biology). The Economist is a weekly news magazine written by young journalists with no special expertise. It is not an academic publication and its authors are not economists.
- JAlexoid 6y ago> The Economist is a weekly news magazine Exactly. They report news and what reputable economists have to say. With sources and quotes. A lot of their articles would be considered a review article in Nature magazine. > young journalists with no special expertise That's literally a logical fallacy. Instead of reading about the sources for the particular article, you're dismissing The Economist like it's a tabloid. Tells me more about your integrity, more than you wish to expose.
- jacobolus 6y agoThe Economist is a step up from The Daily Mail or The Washington Times. But that’s not a high bar. Despite the name, it has almost nothing to do with academic economics. Short Economist articles are not remotely comparable to literature reviews in top peer-reviewed journals. Such an absurd comparison demonstrates a lack of basic familiarity with either The Economist or Nature. This particular article consists of a few paragraphs of unsubstantiated dogmatic whining, centered on a facile, grossly misleading comparison of San Francisco to Cambridge MA. It cites zero economists. No reputable scholar would be willing to attach their name to such drivel. > That's literally a logical fallacy You don’t seem to understand the meaning of “literally” or “logical fallacy”.