84 ms·

Here is an e-book debunking Piketty's ideas https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/anti-piketty.pdf https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/

Here is an e-book debunking Piketty's ideas https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/anti-piketty.pdf https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/anti-pike...

jacobolus 7y ago
Pretty unsurprising that the Koch brothers’ pet “think tank” would want to fight back against anything questioning extreme inequality and concentration of power. Before you examine something published by Cato, you can predict its position, and will rarely if ever be surprised by what you read there. The data will be cherry picked or massaged and the argument will be contorted to support the pre-chosen position favorable to the donors funding it. Cato generally opposes all kinds of taxes and regulations, supports privatization of public institutions and services, opposes a public safety net, opposes campaign finance reform, disputes or downplays global climate change, etc.
- kortilla 7y ago
  Ad hom. If you think this particular paper is invalid and/or cherry-picks points, then refute it specifically. It’s not novel to point out that the Cato institute leans free market.
  - ardy42 7y ago
    > Ad hom. If you think this particular paper is invalid and/or cherry-picks points, then refute it specifically No, it doesn't work like that. Reputation matters, and taking it into account is a way to deal with the sad fact of the Bullshit asymmetry principle. Jacobolus is basically saying Cato has cried wolf too many times to be given the benefit of the doubt anymore. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Bullshit_asymmetry_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Bullshit_asymmetry_pr...: "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
    - kortilla 7y ago
      How pathetic can an idea be that it can’t hold up to rational discourse and must instead be defended by an ad hominem attack? Cato is known for having bias, not for spewing bullshit. The NYTimes has bias and Piketty has bias. The bullshit asymmetry principle never applies when discussing ideas regardless of the bias. Otherwise you could never argue with any human. That principle is a lazy cudgel used by people in echo chambers who are incapable of defending ideas or linking to simple refutations of re-used arguments.
    - davidivadavid 7y ago
      But then Thomas Piketty also has a reputation as an extreme leftist. So we shouldn't listen to his arguments in the first place, I guess?
- mychael 7y ago
  This is a Level 1 comment in the disagreement hierarchy (aka very poor argument) http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
  - jacobolus 7y ago
    When people affiliated with an institution habitually lie to you (I’ve tried carefully critically analyzing Cato publications several times before, and every time came away extremely disappointed), it makes sense to at least be very skeptical of their arguments and independently validate all of their evidence. Personally I would just rather skip reading them in the first place and focus on sources whose intellectual integrity I have some faith in. I have found it saves time and mental energy with little downside. But feel free to read what you like.

Here is an e-book debunking Piketty's ideas https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/anti-piketty.pdf https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/anti-pike...

jacobolus 7y ago

Pretty unsurprising that the Koch brothers’ pet “think tank” would want to fight back against anything questioning extreme inequality and concentration of power. Before you examine something published by Cato, you can predict its position, and will rarely if ever be surprised by what you read there. The data will be cherry picked or massaged and the argument will be contorted to support the pre-chosen position favorable to the donors funding it. Cato generally opposes all kinds of taxes and regulations, supports privatization of public institutions and services, opposes a public safety net, opposes campaign finance reform, disputes or downplays global climate change, etc.

kortilla 7y ago
Ad hom. If you think this particular paper is invalid and/or cherry-picks points, then refute it specifically. It’s not novel to point out that the Cato institute leans free market.
- ardy42 7y ago
  > Ad hom. If you think this particular paper is invalid and/or cherry-picks points, then refute it specifically No, it doesn't work like that. Reputation matters, and taking it into account is a way to deal with the sad fact of the Bullshit asymmetry principle. Jacobolus is basically saying Cato has cried wolf too many times to be given the benefit of the doubt anymore. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Bullshit_asymmetry_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Bullshit_asymmetry_pr...: "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
  - kortilla 7y ago
    How pathetic can an idea be that it can’t hold up to rational discourse and must instead be defended by an ad hominem attack? Cato is known for having bias, not for spewing bullshit. The NYTimes has bias and Piketty has bias. The bullshit asymmetry principle never applies when discussing ideas regardless of the bias. Otherwise you could never argue with any human. That principle is a lazy cudgel used by people in echo chambers who are incapable of defending ideas or linking to simple refutations of re-used arguments.
  - davidivadavid 7y ago
    But then Thomas Piketty also has a reputation as an extreme leftist. So we shouldn't listen to his arguments in the first place, I guess?
mychael 7y ago
This is a Level 1 comment in the disagreement hierarchy (aka very poor argument) http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
- jacobolus 7y ago
  When people affiliated with an institution habitually lie to you (I’ve tried carefully critically analyzing Cato publications several times before, and every time came away extremely disappointed), it makes sense to at least be very skeptical of their arguments and independently validate all of their evidence. Personally I would just rather skip reading them in the first place and focus on sources whose intellectual integrity I have some faith in. I have found it saves time and mental energy with little downside. But feel free to read what you like.