Tom Walker wrote:
> Context, Steve, context.
> Your response to Jim Stanford's piece seemed to
> miss the point that poor-bashing and welfare-bashing have been mainstays of
> the self-styled individualist, "free market" line since time immemorial.
Maybe that's the opinion of some about the actions of a few. But sorry
Tom, no literate reader of English could miss the "point" of Stanford's
essay.
> Jim
> was presenting a "let's put that shoe on the other foot and see how it fits"
> commentary. That happens to be his style. It's a folksy way of making a
> point,
You mean he uses a "baffle them with BS" style. :-) Are you saying that
the end (ire against free market capitalists) justifies any means? Are
you saying "Don't confuse me with the facts?
> it's not intended to be most sophisticated economic analysis.
Journalism has an obligation to present clarity and truth as much as
humanly possible. His essay is nonsense, & I can't fathom you saying
otherwise. You ain't no dope.
> The
> Fraser Institute issues a "report card" on "economic freedom" and Jim
> counters with a report card on economic freedom "for the rest of us" --
How do you define "economic freedom", Tom? Recall the words from my
post:
SK:
> Is "be made to" & "would have to" the preferred sort of
> societal mechanisms you wish used on a minority of your fellow citizens?
> Look out, they may be used on you!
TW:
> meaning those things that matter to people who don't receive most of their
> income from dividends and interest payments. What's wrong with that?
> regards,
Everything is wrong if emotional misconceptions are reinforced. Retired
folks breathe the same air, drink the same water, walk the same
streets... Since when did this list become a place for pure polemic?
Steve
