5 ms·
No, 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
by CrazyStat 4y ago
No, 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.
- CrazyStat 4y ago> Have you? Yes. > In any case, it's not clear why interpreting Adam Smith (1723-1790) is an appropriate criterion here. Because it speaks to both their reading comprehension and grasp of economics.
- 4y ago