this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2024
22 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10176 readers
173 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Did we read the same article?
I posted here with a more in depth look at what it's saying, but TL;DR as far as I can tell its main theses are "please don't listen to expert analysis of the economy" and "here are some ways economic metrics COULD be misleading, I will take no questions about whether they actually ARE misleading in this case, next topic pls."
The author is an economics professor. This IS an expert analysis of the economy. It gave very clear and cogent reasons old metrics are not reliable any longer. Not sure what more you want
A lot of economics professors are wrong about a lot of things, famously so.
(Edit: Actually, a better way to say it. If I can find an economics professor or expert who outranks this guy, is more of an expert, who has the opposite opinion, does that cancel out what this guy says? Because that person's an expert? That's the problem with the appeal to authority.)
No it didn't. It gave very clear, cogent, and accurate reasons why these particular metrics (old or not) are sometimes not reliable. It made no effort to justify why they wouldn't be reliable right now or why the reality differs from the indication of the metrics. Just "these metrics are imperfect, therefore the opposite of what they say must be true, QED." Like I say I went into some detail in my other message, if you want to see.
And, the metrics the author tried to promote instead (on the rare occasions he was trying to promote anything in particular) were incredibly more flawed than the ones he was pointing out the limitations of. Again, I went into some detail in my other message.
If you're planning to simply appeal to authority, like "well this guy's a professor so you're not allowed to think his argument is shit even if you can explain in detail why," then we can end our conversation simply agreeing to disagree about how it works.
Friend, you made the appeal to authority when you said
I was just pointing out that this person is of equal authority.
I don't really care to argue with you as there is no real point. You're either in way too deep to be convinced or you are astroturfing for the DNC or some other political org. I think it is just the former, but the more times I see your comments saying a lot of the same things and vehemently defending Biden, I am beginning to wonder.
Oh, and I read your other comment, but I always doubt someone's intent when they are asking folks to go outside beehaw for a comment. Often times that is to lure folks somewhere with fewer rules. Again, I don't think that is what you are trying to do, but also again I have seen you do it a couple times which gives me a kernal of doubt.
Anyhow, have a good evening.
I posted an incredibly detailed layout of what I think of this guy's analysis and why I think it's crap, and invited you to talk about it with me if you'd like.
You could have saved yourself some typing just by saying "no, I don't want to do that." You don't need to justify. Cheers as well.