4 ms·

Finding someone who will back a specific claim in a given lawsuit is hardly suggestive of an entire field of social scientists bent on making rich people richer

Finding someone who will back a specific claim in a given lawsuit is hardly suggestive of an entire field of social scientists bent on making rich people richer.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
> hardly suggestive of an entire field This is shifting the goalposts. The parent commenter is talking about the "most influential" and it's likely that those who want to be influential will make public appearances and statements. Those are the sort in a field who are paid by large companies to publicly agree with them.
- azinman2 2y ago
  Ok the entire top of the field then. I’d love to see the evidence that the top of the field of economists are working to make rich people richer. The original comment cited trickle down economics (which really means supply-side economics), which is policy oriented (and thus most impactful) versus being an expert for a lawsuit here or there. Google continuing to exist or blowing up won’t fundamentally change the economic outlook of the US at a broad population level. Changing taxation, regulation, and import/export policies will.
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
    > Ok the entire top of the field then. This seems to be focusing too much on the fact that it was initially phrased as "the most successful and influential" -- kinda suggesting "all of the most ..." -- and that's not really a claim I would support. I don't think that's really what the other commenter meant, either. Apologies for the confusion. > Google continuing to exist or blowing up won’t fundamentally change the economic outlook of the US at a broad population level. Changing taxation, regulation, and import/export policies will. Right, this is what the FTC is attempting to do with this lawsuit. A person who testified against them in court is an economist who has won both an Emmy and a Nobel Prize. That seems like at least one who's at or near the top in their field seemingly attempting to influence policy at a high level.

Finding someone who will back a specific claim in a given lawsuit is hardly suggestive of an entire field of social scientists bent on making rich people richer.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago

> hardly suggestive of an entire field This is shifting the goalposts. The parent commenter is talking about the "most influential" and it's likely that those who want to be influential will make public appearances and statements. Those are the sort in a field who are paid by large companies to publicly agree with them.

azinman2 2y ago
Ok the entire top of the field then. I’d love to see the evidence that the top of the field of economists are working to make rich people richer. The original comment cited trickle down economics (which really means supply-side economics), which is policy oriented (and thus most impactful) versus being an expert for a lawsuit here or there. Google continuing to exist or blowing up won’t fundamentally change the economic outlook of the US at a broad population level. Changing taxation, regulation, and import/export policies will.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
  > Ok the entire top of the field then. This seems to be focusing too much on the fact that it was initially phrased as "the most successful and influential" -- kinda suggesting "all of the most ..." -- and that's not really a claim I would support. I don't think that's really what the other commenter meant, either. Apologies for the confusion. > Google continuing to exist or blowing up won’t fundamentally change the economic outlook of the US at a broad population level. Changing taxation, regulation, and import/export policies will. Right, this is what the FTC is attempting to do with this lawsuit. A person who testified against them in court is an economist who has won both an Emmy and a Nobel Prize. That seems like at least one who's at or near the top in their field seemingly attempting to influence policy at a high level.