3 ms·

I think you'd be hard pressed to actually make the case that my post represents an appeal to authority. I've read it again and again and the only way I can see

by lbrandy 18y ago

I think you'd be hard pressed to actually make the case that my post represents an appeal to authority. I've read it again and again and the only way I can see that interpretation is if someone didn't actually bother to read it fully. Either literally, in the sense that they skipped parts, or figuratively, in that they already heard what they wanted to hear and the words weren't actually being processed in the brain. And considering all of this high-minded intellectualism, maybe we need to go back to step one: hearing what the other person is saying so we don't argue with phantoms. So while I appreciate the impassioned defense of the laymen, I could do without both the strawmen and the rampant ad hominem. Normally, I wouldn't get so formal, but it seems to be your thing.

falsestprophet 18y ago
Firstly, forgive me for being a little antsy after you called me a nutjob. Perhaps if you take a step back, you will be able to imagine how your initial abrasive approach may invite uneasiness. You seem to have decided, seemingly in retrospect, that the article was satire in its entirety. But, in the end I still walk away with the idea that you think people who disagree with mainstream ideas in economics are nutjobs. And, importantly, are in no way qualified to talk about them or think about them. "I think you'd be hard pressed to actually make the case that my post represents an appeal to authority." Well, lets see if I'm up for the challenge. "Fiat currency is superior to the gold standard. Bankers are not evil. The Federal Reserve does a half decent job. Money is not debt. Debt isn’t even bad — the vast majority of it can be healthy. If you disagree with me, you are wrong, and a nutjob." Is this an ironic punch-line? Or part of a pattern of defending the status quo established earlier? "All you have to do is bring up topics like fiat currency, the gold standard, money creation, the Federal Reserve and inflation. It’s like walking into a southern church and bringing up evolution. (It’s not often I get to compare you guys to creationists.)" See, earlier, you cited the same series of questions and compared those who disagree with the mainstream to creationists. (I think this is an unfair comparison, but that is another question entirely.) So, I think it that it is reasonable to interpret that as a component of your thesis. Sandwiched in between these ideological statements are a few paragraphs about how the layman is not equipped to understand or discuss the ideas. This is what I read in telegraph form: positions on economic theory STOP, you are not equipped to disagree STOP, therefore: positions of economic STOP. Maybe you didn't mean to communicate this. But whatever your intention, I think you did end up saying it. But, now, I realize I really have no idea what you actually meant. Maybe I am too foolish to understand; maybe your writing is imperfect. Oh well, I think we are all likely to survive to see tomorrow. * I feel pretty silly writing all of this nonsense without even mentioning economics. Is it reasonable to question whether mainstream economic hypotheses are valid? I think so. Firstly, professional economists disagree about everything you mentioned (especially the role of the Federal reserve and the wisdom of a fiat currency). Secondly, consider the practitioners, who are under much more pressure to get it right than academics because the practitioners are subjected to real feedback. The practitioners are forced to discard poor ideas and routinely reject many mainstream academic hypotheses (like the efficient market hypothesis and the sanity of the Fed's inflationary bender). Finally, these practitioners are frequently laymen. So, maybe there is hope for us. Maybe we can learn something by talking. I think we can all learn a lot by talking more: nutjobs and all.
- mistermann 18y ago
  I agree. And what a fine logical dismantlement. "I feel pretty silly writing all of this nonsense without even mentioning economics" On the contrary, the world needs more of this...the obvious utter lack of ability of the average person to perform simple logical thinking is one of the most dangerous things out there right now, and is what makes modern public opinion so easy to manipulate. If more people were walking around with the ability to think, reason, and communicate, we wouldn't be in such a mess. And then we have people like the original author....outspoken, but uninformed, who are essentially telling people to shut up, and don't even bother thinking, it is futile. Although, if he was going for the most ironic blog post of the year, he has succeeded splendidly.
- lbrandy 18y ago
  Let me start by saying that your post seems sincere, but I believe extremely misguided. I'm going to post my thoughts, in detail. I'm sorry but I'm going to have to ignore your assertion that I decided it was "satire" retroactively. That's primarily ridiculous but also insulting. Now, let's get to the meat of your complaint. You accuse me of "defending the status quo" and nowhere did I do that (except in the final paragraph...which we'll get to a second). And yet, somehow you found it. Why? I'm guessing because you wanted to hear it. Let me show you... All you have to do is bring up topics like fiat currency, the gold standard, money creation, the Federal Reserve and inflation. It’s like walking into a southern church and bringing up evolution. You went so far as to call this statement "ideological". I'm sorry if this is harsh, but that is flat our ridiculous. Ridiculous. You cannot reasonably claim that this established any pattern whatsoever of position, status quo or not. I mentioned fiat currency versus the gold standard, money creation, the Federal Reserve, and inflation. Nowhere in this statement did I make any judgement on any position, for or against, status quo or not. Nowhere in this statement did I claim any of those positions, on either side, is equivalent to creationism, either. Nowhere in this statement am I advocating any position on any of those issues, either. Yet you seem to have found it. All I said was that those topics were likely to degenerate into flame wars, just like evolution in a southern church. The statement about evolution is the more controversial one! Next, the final paragraph. It came after no less than 5 paragraphs of meta-discussion on the -exact- behavior I was ironically exhibiting in that paragraph. I wrote 5 paragraphs about the way people online act when they discuss these issues, and then I proceeded to do the -exact-same-thing- and you question whether or not it was intentional? I don't know how I could make it more clear. I spent 5 paragraphs explaining it. I even added a note. I wrote it in several comments. What if I'd put a smiley at the end? Would that have eased your frayed nerves? Would that have made you realize there was a more subtle point in play here? Furthermore, the only two paragraphs you quoted in the entire article are the first and the last. You've read so deep into me mentioning a bunch of issues, that you actually think you've read advocacy. You've taken my one sarcastic paragraph and asked if I really meant it. You skipped the 7 in the middle that discuss, without fail, the issue of the conversation itself. In other words, the actual important part of my argument is conspicuously missing from your analysis. Now, let's get onto the most important point: I didn't call you a nutjob. Yes, I know very well that I actually say "you are a nutjob" not once but twice in the updated version, but I'm still not calling you a nutjob. When you actually read the middle paragraphs and realize the final paragraph is nothing but a tongue-in-cheek imitation of the -precise- behavior I'm criticizing, you will realize that the last paragraph was simply me parodying the behavior in question. It was intentional hypocrisy. Again, I spent 5 paragraphs explaining this. Now, if you don't mind, I'd like to make some completely unsubstantiated guesses as to what's really going on. (If this doesn't apply to you, I apologize, but I got 10 emails and you can find a dozen comments on reddit that it fits the bill perfectly for). You didn't really read it. You probably skipped to the last paragraph, took it seriously, and got emotionally involved. Probably because no less than one of the things in the final paragraph argues with some macro-economic truth that you hold. Ever since you've been emotionally involved, you haven't actually really read what I wrote. You've pigeonholed my argument into what you wanted to hear. You've become defensive. If you bother to sit down and read it, from start to finish, without your preconceptions that I am attacking your ideals, you'll find that not only am I not saying what you think I am saying, but more importantly that you are proving my point. PS: I spent about 30 minutes composing and editing this for you. I hope you at least read it. I got discouraged about 10 minutes ago, however, when it was already downmodded to 0. I finished anyway.

by lbrandy 18y ago

falsestprophet 18y ago

Firstly, forgive me for being a little antsy after you called me a nutjob. Perhaps if you take a step back, you will be able to imagine how your initial abrasive approach may invite uneasiness. You seem to have decided, seemingly in retrospect, that the article was satire in its entirety. But, in the end I still walk away with the idea that you think people who disagree with mainstream ideas in economics are nutjobs. And, importantly, are in no way qualified to talk about them or think about them. "I think you'd be hard pressed to actually make the case that my post represents an appeal to authority." Well, lets see if I'm up for the challenge. "Fiat currency is superior to the gold standard. Bankers are not evil. The Federal Reserve does a half decent job. Money is not debt. Debt isn’t even bad — the vast majority of it can be healthy. If you disagree with me, you are wrong, and a nutjob." Is this an ironic punch-line? Or part of a pattern of defending the status quo established earlier? "All you have to do is bring up topics like fiat currency, the gold standard, money creation, the Federal Reserve and inflation. It’s like walking into a southern church and bringing up evolution. (It’s not often I get to compare you guys to creationists.)" See, earlier, you cited the same series of questions and compared those who disagree with the mainstream to creationists. (I think this is an unfair comparison, but that is another question entirely.) So, I think it that it is reasonable to interpret that as a component of your thesis. Sandwiched in between these ideological statements are a few paragraphs about how the layman is not equipped to understand or discuss the ideas. This is what I read in telegraph form: positions on economic theory STOP, you are not equipped to disagree STOP, therefore: positions of economic STOP. Maybe you didn't mean to communicate this. But whatever your intention, I think you did end up saying it. But, now, I realize I really have no idea what you actually meant. Maybe I am too foolish to understand; maybe your writing is imperfect. Oh well, I think we are all likely to survive to see tomorrow. * I feel pretty silly writing all of this nonsense without even mentioning economics. Is it reasonable to question whether mainstream economic hypotheses are valid? I think so. Firstly, professional economists disagree about everything you mentioned (especially the role of the Federal reserve and the wisdom of a fiat currency). Secondly, consider the practitioners, who are under much more pressure to get it right than academics because the practitioners are subjected to real feedback. The practitioners are forced to discard poor ideas and routinely reject many mainstream academic hypotheses (like the efficient market hypothesis and the sanity of the Fed's inflationary bender). Finally, these practitioners are frequently laymen. So, maybe there is hope for us. Maybe we can learn something by talking. I think we can all learn a lot by talking more: nutjobs and all.

mistermann 18y ago
I agree. And what a fine logical dismantlement. "I feel pretty silly writing all of this nonsense without even mentioning economics" On the contrary, the world needs more of this...the obvious utter lack of ability of the average person to perform simple logical thinking is one of the most dangerous things out there right now, and is what makes modern public opinion so easy to manipulate. If more people were walking around with the ability to think, reason, and communicate, we wouldn't be in such a mess. And then we have people like the original author....outspoken, but uninformed, who are essentially telling people to shut up, and don't even bother thinking, it is futile. Although, if he was going for the most ironic blog post of the year, he has succeeded splendidly.
lbrandy 18y ago
Let me start by saying that your post seems sincere, but I believe extremely misguided. I'm going to post my thoughts, in detail. I'm sorry but I'm going to have to ignore your assertion that I decided it was "satire" retroactively. That's primarily ridiculous but also insulting. Now, let's get to the meat of your complaint. You accuse me of "defending the status quo" and nowhere did I do that (except in the final paragraph...which we'll get to a second). And yet, somehow you found it. Why? I'm guessing because you wanted to hear it. Let me show you... All you have to do is bring up topics like fiat currency, the gold standard, money creation, the Federal Reserve and inflation. It’s like walking into a southern church and bringing up evolution. You went so far as to call this statement "ideological". I'm sorry if this is harsh, but that is flat our ridiculous. Ridiculous. You cannot reasonably claim that this established any pattern whatsoever of position, status quo or not. I mentioned fiat currency versus the gold standard, money creation, the Federal Reserve, and inflation. Nowhere in this statement did I make any judgement on any position, for or against, status quo or not. Nowhere in this statement did I claim any of those positions, on either side, is equivalent to creationism, either. Nowhere in this statement am I advocating any position on any of those issues, either. Yet you seem to have found it. All I said was that those topics were likely to degenerate into flame wars, just like evolution in a southern church. The statement about evolution is the more controversial one! Next, the final paragraph. It came after no less than 5 paragraphs of meta-discussion on the -exact- behavior I was ironically exhibiting in that paragraph. I wrote 5 paragraphs about the way people online act when they discuss these issues, and then I proceeded to do the -exact-same-thing- and you question whether or not it was intentional? I don't know how I could make it more clear. I spent 5 paragraphs explaining it. I even added a note. I wrote it in several comments. What if I'd put a smiley at the end? Would that have eased your frayed nerves? Would that have made you realize there was a more subtle point in play here? Furthermore, the only two paragraphs you quoted in the entire article are the first and the last. You've read so deep into me mentioning a bunch of issues, that you actually think you've read advocacy. You've taken my one sarcastic paragraph and asked if I really meant it. You skipped the 7 in the middle that discuss, without fail, the issue of the conversation itself. In other words, the actual important part of my argument is conspicuously missing from your analysis. Now, let's get onto the most important point: I didn't call you a nutjob. Yes, I know very well that I actually say "you are a nutjob" not once but twice in the updated version, but I'm still not calling you a nutjob. When you actually read the middle paragraphs and realize the final paragraph is nothing but a tongue-in-cheek imitation of the -precise- behavior I'm criticizing, you will realize that the last paragraph was simply me parodying the behavior in question. It was intentional hypocrisy. Again, I spent 5 paragraphs explaining this. Now, if you don't mind, I'd like to make some completely unsubstantiated guesses as to what's really going on. (If this doesn't apply to you, I apologize, but I got 10 emails and you can find a dozen comments on reddit that it fits the bill perfectly for). You didn't really read it. You probably skipped to the last paragraph, took it seriously, and got emotionally involved. Probably because no less than one of the things in the final paragraph argues with some macro-economic truth that you hold. Ever since you've been emotionally involved, you haven't actually really read what I wrote. You've pigeonholed my argument into what you wanted to hear. You've become defensive. If you bother to sit down and read it, from start to finish, without your preconceptions that I am attacking your ideals, you'll find that not only am I not saying what you think I am saying, but more importantly that you are proving my point. PS: I spent about 30 minutes composing and editing this for you. I hope you at least read it. I got discouraged about 10 minutes ago, however, when it was already downmodded to 0. I finished anyway.