3 ms·
This is a fluff article. Tempting fluff that causes everybody to come to the comment section and offer up their preconceived ideas. But fluff is fluff, even if
by Prrometheus 18y ago
This is a fluff article. Tempting fluff that causes everybody to come to the comment section and offer up their preconceived ideas. But fluff is fluff, even if it's tasty.
I don't see what I would gain from reading Greenspun's opinion on economic policy matters that I wouldn't get from reading Hayek, Friedman, or Keynes, or modern empirical arguments from places like Cato. What comparative advantage does Greenspun have here?
- rsheridan6 18y agoDo you have any actual problems with the article that would rate more than a DH0 response? http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
- Prrometheus 18y agoI am not insulting Phil Greenspun. But do you know how many personal political manifestos are on the internet? What are the chances that this one will be more valuable than average? I read through the first page or so, it didn't seem like it was going to offer any new or interesting ideas. And that's fine. Phil can post his opinions on his web page all he wants. It's a free country. I just don't think it should be the #1 story on the front page, or that it will engender good discussion.
- tptacek 18y agoCan we not use shorthand from a blog post where well-established terminology already applies? Almost any fallacy you'd like to point out in someone else's argument here is better explained in the Nizkor list.
- rsheridan6 18y agoThere was no fallacy, just an assertion that the article was fluff.