Econ 101

[chuck]

What I find cute about this piece is the number of propaganda tools and tactics included within.

What I find interesting about the comment is the tendency to respond to an opinion by giving it a disparaging label as if that is a valid counter to the point being made.

...economies don't operate at the 101 level, more like the 595 level.

Without the basics, the upper levels collapse. It appears that the basics have been ignored and we are finding ourselves in a financial bind using only the 595 stuff.

And for every George Mason University professor that writes a cute, fun poking "I'm right and you're wrong" article, I can show you another from Yale or Harvard with the opposite opinion that is equally convincing.

Please do, not that I give Yale or Harvard any high marks for being unbiased, balanced, ethical, or logical.

When do we stop jibing each other for which side of the political equation you are on, and get to something that is more serious than cute? That is something that I would: 1) Strongly agree with.

The ball was in your court and you responded with a jibing attack.

Why not respond to the points that were presented in the piece rather than using meaningless labels and trying to put on airs about Yale/Harvard vs. George Mason University?

For example: Why is our education system failing that misinformation is believed? (If they are wrong about 101, you can be sure they aren't right about 595) Is the skewed balance of political philosophy indicative of ignorance, bias, or indoctrination? Are the results an indication of bias in our educational system?

These are all important issues. An informed populace is necessary to maintain our freedom and conversely, a misinformed populace is not cute and endangers it.