I didn't see the point of a good portion of that response because the author kept referring to the past. It was only after 6 paragraphs that he started tacklin

I didn't see the point of a good portion of that response because the author kept referring to the past. It was only after 6 paragraphs that he started tackling the current model, and he does that by not only describing the issues surrounding it ambiguously ("fair amount"), but also by using the past as an argument: > I would argue that the economic consensus model in the Netherlands is quite recent in historical terms, and that even today, it contains a fair amount of conflict. > In 1982 the Dutch state... And the 4 paragraphs later he ends with: > These changes are worth noting, but they came about only after extremely difficult struggles that took decades. Some of the social issues he raises are interesting, but overall I feel that this is a poor response.