Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Add Chadwick to the No-Short-Read List
I decided a few days ago to never ever read or listen to Jim Cramer again, on principle. Today I must add another frequent CNBC contributor, Patricia Chadwick, to the list.
I have criticized Chadwick before. But that was nothing. In today's "article," she offers absolutely zero arguments. She simply asserts that the American people are idiots--though understandably so, in Chadwick's condescending pity--for thinking the Paulson Plan a bad deal.
And then, in order to placate those readers who maybe wanted some evidence or something, Chadwick links them to a Tom Friedman (!!) op ed on why Americans should support the bailout. You know, noted economist and successful day trader Tom Friedman?
I have criticized Chadwick before. But that was nothing. In today's "article," she offers absolutely zero arguments. She simply asserts that the American people are idiots--though understandably so, in Chadwick's condescending pity--for thinking the Paulson Plan a bad deal.
And then, in order to placate those readers who maybe wanted some evidence or something, Chadwick links them to a Tom Friedman (!!) op ed on why Americans should support the bailout. You know, noted economist and successful day trader Tom Friedman?
# posted by Bob Murphy @ 1:06 PM 
Comments:
Wow! First David "sloppy slosh" Brooks, now Tom Friedman! The Gray Lady must be bringing on the econ heavy hitters in response to those cnn.com commentaries by Ron Paul and Jeffrey Miron.
# posted by 
: October 1, 2008 1:41 PM
: October 1, 2008 1:41 PM
I *could* make a remark about "oh yeah, noted climate scientist Bob_Murphy", but I'm not. Just don't feel like it today.
So columnists have nothing to contribute to the discussion about whether there should be a bailout and what it should look like?
And please don't strawman me. I was referring to your attempts to speak about long-term climate forecasting ("climate science" as I said), not the entire C&T discussion. You're smart enough to have figured that out.
Obviously, economists contribute in terms of understanding the tradeoffs involved in various restrictions, what restrictions are the most efficient, what happens when a scarce resource is never priced (*cough cough*), and so on. They do *not* have any special expertise or credibility, however, in terms of predicting the *content* of future climate.
You have attempted to dispute climate science itself, which would make you vulnerable to the same criticism you just made of Tom Friedman. (No, no underscore, haven't been in a discussion with him, duh.)
And please don't strawman me. I was referring to your attempts to speak about long-term climate forecasting ("climate science" as I said), not the entire C&T discussion. You're smart enough to have figured that out.
Obviously, economists contribute in terms of understanding the tradeoffs involved in various restrictions, what restrictions are the most efficient, what happens when a scarce resource is never priced (*cough cough*), and so on. They do *not* have any special expertise or credibility, however, in terms of predicting the *content* of future climate.
You have attempted to dispute climate science itself, which would make you vulnerable to the same criticism you just made of Tom Friedman. (No, no underscore, haven't been in a discussion with him, duh.)
cramer made a ton of money. who doesn't respect that? I listen to him
# posted by : October 1, 2008 4:11 PM
: October 1, 2008 4:11 PM
Silas,
If I linked to Tom Friedman's column and said, "What the heck is he doing talking about the bailout?!" then you would have a point.
That's not what I did.
This lady Chadwick is writing a column for CNBC. She merely asserts that the people who emailed her are wrong, without giving a single argument (in this column) showing why.
And then she tops it all off by referring people to Tom Friedman's op ed.
Post a Comment
If I linked to Tom Friedman's column and said, "What the heck is he doing talking about the bailout?!" then you would have a point.
That's not what I did.
This lady Chadwick is writing a column for CNBC. She merely asserts that the people who emailed her are wrong, without giving a single argument (in this column) showing why.
And then she tops it all off by referring people to Tom Friedman's op ed.
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]