3 ms·
It's a bad and misleading analogy, because most readers will understand it as "companies are richer than countries"--which is probably exactly the feeling that
by CrazyStat 4y ago
It's a bad and misleading analogy, because most readers will understand it as "companies are richer than countries"--which is probably exactly the feeling that Jacobin wants to evoke. I wouldn't accept such an analogy from a right wing news source (Fox News, say), and I won't accept it from a left wing news source.
To build on your analogy, it's like saying "if you laid all the people in the world in a line it would circle the globe N times" but not mentioning the fact that you're lining them up belly to back instead of head to toe.
We should hold ourselves to a higher standard.
- lapcat 4y ago> most readers will understand it as "companies are richer than countries" Says who? You're not giving readers much credit.
- CrazyStat 4y agoNo, I'm not. Most people don't understand the details of either corporate or national accounting, and the very important difference between an annual production measure like GDP vs a total market value measure like market cap will be lost on them, especially in passing.
- lapcat 4y agoAgain you're speaking for "Most people" with no empirical evidence or polling. Let me take a turn though: "Most people" aren't reading a Jacobin article at all. The only relevant audience is the readers of this article.
- CrazyStat 4y agoUnfortunately readers of Jacobin are perhaps particularly unlikely to understand the details of corporate and national accounting.
- lapcat 4y agoYou're one of them.
- CrazyStat 4y agoOnly in passing.
- lapcat 4y agoThereby admitting that you actually know nothing about readers of Jacobin, and your slur was completely unjustified.
- CrazyStat 4y agoBad reasoning. I bet you don't watch Newsmax, but you probably know some things about people who watch Newsmax. I wanted to make a joke about it being exactly the kind of reasoning a Jacobin reader would use, but I'm refraining.
- lapcat 4y ago> I bet you don't watch Newsmax, but you probably know some things about people who watch Newsmax. I don't, and I don't. > I wanted to make a joke about it being exactly the kind of reasoning a Jacobin reader would use, but I'm refraining. I'm not a regular Jacobin reader, "only in passing" as you say. In any case, you're just spouting stereotypes invented in your own mind.
- CrazyStat 4y agoNo, I've had enough Jacobin readers misinterpret Adam Smith to me to form an informed opinion.
- lapcat 4y agoHave you? How many, exactly? In any case, it's not clear why interpreting Adam Smith (1723-1790) is an appropriate criterion here. Of course, I don't grant without evidence that you possess a correction interpretation of Adam Smith. FWIW (not much) I read The Wealth of Nations many years ago, though I don't claim to be a Smith scholar, and I have no wish to debate the matter with you. I just find it strange that you feel the need to drag him into this discussion.