3 ms·
First off, this isn't Digg or Reddit. Snarky, shallow, one-line summaries are generally not welcome here. Second, your stupid summary is not supported by the t
by mkn 18y ago
First off, this isn't Digg or Reddit. Snarky, shallow, one-line summaries are generally not welcome here.
Second, your stupid summary is not supported by the text of the article.
people [sic] are irrational and make stupid decisions.
There is some truth to this if we take the best possible reading. Research continually shows that people do make decisions that are not supported by rational thinking. Bubbles arise in very simple trading games, even when there is an objective maximum to the item traded that falls well below the traded value, for example. There are countless other examples and a rich and growing literature on the subject. Thus, your first statement seems actually to be true, even if it was offered with sarcastic disdain.
The government knows better.
Again, neither your sarcastic disdain nor your parroting of a right-wing canard make this statement any less true as it pertains to this article. Given that the percentage of people making a given choice can be skewed by how the choice is offered, it seems a reasonable course of action to make the offer in such a way as to achieve the desired result. The decreased withholding example from the article is a brilliant case in point. The government really does know better which way to implement a tax cut in order to increase spending.
Typical Time Magazine.
At some point in your life you're going to have to start addressing the substance of arguments offered rather than considering the source. Maligning Time serves no purpose relevant to the discussion of whether or not the propositions offered in the article correspond to reality. It serves only to rehearse your own biases.
This is a forum for grown-ups. If you can't comport yourself in a manner appropriate to your peers, please remain silent.
Or, to put it in terms more fitting Digg or Reddit: Lurk Moar!
- ellyagg 18y agoGood point. I think what he meant to say is that the article made sweeping generalizations about the quality of human decision making, resting on a few superficial stats and questionable assumptions. It also fetishized tricks to change folks' behavior while pretending that Obama's public policy goals are indisputable. Since one man's ideal world is not the same as another man's, and the form one's ideal world takes is generally governed by first principles that can't be proved, and since public policy is the means to transform the world into one's ideal, the notion that the administration's policies can't be criticized is ludicrously silly. Sure, I'm interested in the means, but it's by no means settled what the ends should be. (Nor will it ever be, I should add, as long as people are free to disagree.) Anyone who has followed Time Magazine at all knows that this is typical of its writing.
- davidw 18y ago> Or, to put it in terms more fitting Digg or Reddit: Lurk Moar! Or to put it in hacker news terms, flag the article (it's about politics and doesn't belong here) and move on.
- anamax 18y ago>> The government knows better. > Again, neither your sarcastic disdain nor your parroting of a right-wing canard make this statement any less true as it pertains to this article. Hmm. Did govt know best during the Bush years? Do you really want to argue that general skepticism towards govt is wrong? If it isn't, do you really want to argue that it's a "right-wing canard"? Hint: saying that someone is "right-wing" or taking a right-wing position isn't actually a cogent argument. The folks who care about the lables either already agree or strongly disagree. The undecided don't care about the labels or the tribes. (Clue: "destroy Bush" was only the goal of leftwing fanboys.)