Comments on: Economist blog

By: stefan van der wel

stefan van der wel — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:43:38 +0000

“Democracy is impossible anywhere religion dominates anyhow.” – bgat

Amusing, last time I checked, democracy was still alive and well in the United States, a rather religious state (by western standards at least).

As for your arguement that replacing one strongman dictator with another more pro-US one, for the cost of a few hundred thousand lives makes it “worth the cost in final analysis”. Just remember, Saddam was a pro-US strongman dictator in the 1980’s so whoever gets his job isn’t neccessarily going to stay pro-US.

By: Roy Bland

Roy Bland — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 19:30:52 +0000

“Megan McArdle is a political propagandist through and through. Her writing style seems to consist of smug, patronizing lectures about how her view is clearly correct if we would just examine the evidence impartially and rationally, followed by botched and biased analysis which clearly demonstrate that she has not examined the evidence impartially. A very irritating writer.”

how anybody can write that on this blog without their heads exploding I don’t know.

By: Barry

Barry — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 13:35:55 +0000

Thank you for conceding defeat, ricardo. It must be interesting being you, reading something carefully, and then throwing it in the trash can, after finding a who’s/whose error.

Good thing that I didn’t make an it’s/its slip; then I’d be in really deep doo-doo.

By: Walt

Walt — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 03:23:25 +0000

There are no binomial option pricing methods that correct grammar.

By: ricardo

ricardo — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 23:28:00 +0000

“…a Chicago MBA who’s career is a string of failures…she can’t hack competitive situations where her numbers would be examined by quant jocks”

Those quant jocks could probably poke holes in your grammar, Barry.

By: Walt

Walt — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 17:18:37 +0000

If conservatives would try to be less contemptible, asg, this wouldn’t come up. You bring it on yourselves with your contempt for right and wrong.

By: John Emerson

John Emerson — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 02:35:58 +0000

Conservatives sneer at letters to the editor, d^2. Letters to the editor are for birdwatchers and librarians. Conservatives only understand being whacked with a 2×4 (whatever that is in metric).

By: asg

asg — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 16:37:41 +0000

Nothing like a nice Two Minute Hate right before Saturday lunch to stir up the appetite and keep the vitriol warm and bubbling for the week to come.

By: Barry

Barry — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 13:22:35 +0000

Daniel, go ahead and register; whoever is moderating the comments let mine through. Megan, I’m sure that is sarcastic. You operate in the world of propaganda, where you can never actually be wrong, unless you miss changes in the political whims of those who write the checks.

I do notice that you didn’t address Daniel’s critique of your article.

By: Jane Galt

Jane Galt — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 12:16:09 +0000

I quake in my boots.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 10:14:47 +0000

Oh good god, there is now an even stupider one above the post Henry linked to, in which she not only demonstrates complete lack of understanding the concept of a standard error, not only (presumably purposefully) ignores the published confidence intervals, but presumes to patronise people who know more than her by pretending that a collection of bar-room platitudes and fallacies is “basic statistics”.

I think it is perhaps unfortunate for Megan that the Economist blog has comments registration, as it means that I am going to have to carry out my complaints about this blatantly misleading rubbish through the medium of letters to the editor.

By: Barry

Barry — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 23:21:11 +0000

And I expect her to have a successful career. We’ll see her byline on The Weekly Standard, TNR, NR, WSJ (editorial page, of course), Forbes, and others. She’ll probably do a stint as a ‘scholar’ at someplace like AEI/CEI/Hudson/Manhattan Institute
(not Hoover, though – I’ve heard that they have standards).

By: MQ

MQ — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 23:01:54 +0000

Megan McArdle is a political propagandist through and through. Her writing style seems to consist of smug, patronizing lectures about how her view is clearly correct if we would just examine the evidence impartially and rationally, followed by botched and biased analysis which clearly demonstrate that she has not examined the evidence impartially. A very irritating writer.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 22:31:59 +0000

McArdle’s post is clearly much worse than the actual Economist coverage of the Lancet report, presumably forsaging a very bad trend.

By: Barry

Barry — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 21:40:15 +0000

There was some discussion on Brad DeLong’s blog, that the people running The Economist seem to have decided that flattering the upper-middle and upper classes of the US was the way to make money in the US. They’re probably right :(