brianary

Calling well-earned criticism of economics anti-intellectualism is using the composition/division fallacy.

Most people's lives have been affected for decades by Chicago School of Economics voodoo nonsense, that's where much modern criticism is aimed.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_in_a_Time_of_Debt

• https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/jul/11/how-economics-became-a-religion

• https://pluralistic.net/tag/chicago-school/

It's this: https://www.newsweek.com/james-comey-deletes-post-depicting-8647-after-backlash-online-2073031

James Comey posted a picture of "8647" (get rid of Trump) spelled in shells.

The "light truck" exemption is a huge problem, and needs to be repealed.

Big cars also reduce everyone else's visibility.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=jg047oJf1B4&t=45s

Yes, and if that's the only issue that matters to you, and you ignore the impact on all those other people, I guess that's fair to say they are the same. But does all that extra suffering serve a purpose? Are you volunteering yourself to bear any of it, or only others?

Straw men? You understand that these are actually things that are really happening, right?

I'm more into the FRC.

I understand how you've arrived at that conclusion, but you should investigate Popper's Paradox.

It would be so much more interesting to see the % of dollars claimed.

Does negging his customers count as an idea?

I mean, they are also responsible for making news a for-profit enterprise, which has arguably ultimately killed it.

Yeah, that's fair.