Chris comment can be read as related to issues (on which I'm probably mostly on your side), while you have made it an entirely personal thing.
It's all about context... Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
When does something cease to qualify as "context?" Is there a statute of limitation on these things? If you go back a quarter or half a year in the comment log of any reasonably active contributor, you can find an uncharitable bit of "context" to fit to any prejudice.
I'm not necessarily saying that's what happened here - my eyes tend to glaze over when Jerome and Chris dive into the jargon together to hash out some arcane point that I haven't quite gotten to on my self- (and ET-)taught "bootstrap economics 101" course.
But it is something to keep in mind. "Once on the 'net, always on the 'net" is not quite the same thing as "once on the 'net, always relevant on the 'net."
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
But to even begin to question the EU on this site is to invite the world to fall around one's ears, as both solveig and I have found.
That is a rhetorical gimmick that can certainly be challenged. If somebody had asked Chris to dig out an example or two, pretty please, the shoe would have been on the other foot.
But to read an off-hand rhetorical gimmick [2] in the context of a two-months old post does not strike me as an excessively charitable reading, shall we say. And a little more charitable readings might go a long way towards avoiding flame wars like the ones we've seen over the last week.
- Jake
[1] For the record, and to avoid misunderstandings, I don't recall any discussion of Lisbon in which Frank participated during the Irish campaign devolving into flame wars. Vigorous and interesting discussions, certainly, but never flame wars. Which is what makes it hyperbole, of course.
[2] It is, of course, possible that I am entirely wrong in my reading of the comment in question - that what I interpreted as an off-hand rhetorical flourish was in fact a major salient. If so, my conjectures and analysis of course becomes inappropriate. If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
if you want to criticise Lisbon while Frank is in campaign mode, you'd better bring your asbestos suit [1].
Aha! See! Victimisation! (I will conveniently omit reference to your kind caveat which follows below). The context is what I say it is. notes from no w here
Chris posts a comment to a diary by Jerome. There is a context that they may share that you may not be privy to. Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
We've provided inconvenient facts a bit too often, maybe. Thu the need for insults? (Just wondering out loud, this is obviously not directed at anyone, of course). In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
"People" here means everyone: Me, you, Chris, Mig, Solveig, the lurkers, the bum who lives under the local rail bridge. Everyone.
I note that the accusation has not been withdrawn, or pointed towards someone else. I consider it's still there. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Lets just agree on the word you used to describe your behaviour, no matter how diplomatic your "apology" may have been.
Aggressive.
It's not the word that's unacceptable, it's the behaviour.
As for the Pirsig quote, the fact it contained the word "fanatically" clearly meant something to you, but certainly not to me.
That's unfortunate. For my own part, I had put the Open Thread nonsense behind me two months ago, and little realised it still festered.
As for "ideologue", I confess I don't know the word well enough to use it. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
And now, again, throwing my apology back at me ("you called yourself aggressive"). That's inappropriate, to say the least. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Whatever. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
You are also seeking to muddy the waters by claiming that Chris called you a Euro fanatic. He has already admitted to doing so in anger after you insulted his partner. Perhaps he marginally overstepped the mark of fair comment. However I'm not so sure that being regarded as a Euro-fanatic is an insult. I know No Campaigners in Ireland would regard me as one. As it happens my views on the EU appear to be much closer to yours that to Chris'. I have taken issue with his views on the EU on this thread, and can't say I understand how, concretely, he would move the EU from where it is now to where he wants it to be. And I am also not sure that I find his vision for Europe obviously better. But all of that is by the by.
The issue is one of you as founder, owner and frontpager seeking to apply one law for others and a much lesser standard for yourself. There is nothing anyone can do to stop you doing this. But this would cease to be a true community blog if you do so. You have painted an admirable vision of your commitment to the EU in this Diary. Unfortunately you also seem to have an authoritarian streak which cries "whatever" when others make a different case and insists on having it all your own way. My fear is that such authoritarianism will destroy ET as a community blog (and the EU as a democratically evolving demos) and will leave everyone with a very sad and sour taste indeed. It's time to pull pack. To have a bit more respect for those you disagree with. Your moral authority is based not on your winning every argument, but on your allowing respectful argument to flourish. You are the freely acknowledged leader of this community now. Don't throw that hard earned respect away.
I'm going to leave this conversation now because I have said my piece and don't want to exacerbate tensions even more. Perhaps a cooling off period will do us all some good. ET is the best blog I've found anywhere. I don't want to lose it either. Losing an argument is nothing compared to losing a friendship or a community. notes from no w here
Solveig:
You seem to have a gift for misrepresenting what I say. Jerome a Paris:when you bring up stuff which is obviously false, or that basic research, as demonstrated by Mig, can easily prove to be wrong, especially when you hide behind "but she's someone I like" as a defense. If you read the thread, Mig has not proved anything that was not already in the article I unfortunately did not translate - it states that the final decision has not yet been made - and that is the conclusion Mig came to, as well, if I read him correctly. I also linked to another article on the topic from 4 December, where it states that the minister was in Brussels to make sure Norway can keep its guarantees - in other words, she went to participate in the EU decision-making process. Why would she bother about travelling to Brussels if there was no possibility Norway could be obliged to reduce its guarantees?
Jerome a Paris:
when you bring up stuff which is obviously false, or that basic research, as demonstrated by Mig, can easily prove to be wrong, especially when you hide behind "but she's someone I like" as a defense.
If you read the thread, Mig has not proved anything that was not already in the article I unfortunately did not translate - it states that the final decision has not yet been made - and that is the conclusion Mig came to, as well, if I read him correctly.
I also linked to another article on the topic from 4 December, where it states that the minister was in Brussels to make sure Norway can keep its guarantees - in other words, she went to participate in the EU decision-making process. Why would she bother about travelling to Brussels if there was no possibility Norway could be obliged to reduce its guarantees?
The precise word used in relation to your approach to solveig in that thread is a red herring. It was not right. That was what made me angry then, and the fact that you still can't see it, I find deeply disappointing. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
And when the facts crumbled (which I see you still deny) you went for the bully theme : "pick on someone your size" - who else is on that list of yours of people too stupid to argue for themselves, so I know who not to burden with facts? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
you went for the bully theme : "pick on someone your size"
I reacted when my partner was attacked: I am sure you would do the same. I had no particular interest in the thread 'til then.
who else is on that list of yours of people too stupid to argue for themselves, so I know who not to burden with facts?
? "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
No decision has been made yet on the matter of EU/EEA bank guarantees. I can assure you it would have been in the Norwegian papers. Mig did NOT demonstrate or prove that I was wrong. He only found that the decision had not been made.
Here
...and the Norwegians, may I add - and that's without being members. Interference from the EU keeps wrecking good systems Norwegians have had for years, and the EU is therefore viewed by many as an 'empire' whose rules we are forced to follow. The present battle is about the guarantees on bank deposits. Norway is now asked (forced?)to reduce their present level (2 mill. NoK, which has been in place since the bank crises in the 90's) to the level recently set by the EU countries. No wonder the 'no' side in Norway does not even have to do anything to see their numbers grow :-)
Interference from the EU keeps wrecking good systems Norwegians have had for years, and the EU is therefore viewed by many as an 'empire' whose rules we are forced to follow.
The present battle is about the guarantees on bank deposits. Norway is now asked (forced?)to reduce their present level (2 mill. NoK, which has been in place since the bank crises in the 90's) to the level recently set by the EU countries.
No wonder the 'no' side in Norway does not even have to do anything to see their numbers grow :-)
Reading this, I - would assume, that a decision has already been made, that the EU wants Norway to reduce its guarantee [And that is exactly what Mig digged up was false]
- get very angry, as Norway gets huge economic advantages from free trade [the 'default' of course is closed boarders] with the EU while the EU gets relatively little from that, they are still complaining, when the wants (or even doesn't want) some regulation to have the common market working [Of course not your fault if you don't understand this, but may contribute to an aggressive response, if the exploiters claim to be victims] Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
Are you trying to say it wasn't real to you, then? Does it not matter to you that you then accepted it? Or did you "accept" it? In any case, it obviously helped you think of yourselves as the victims in that conversation, oppressed by the nasty overlords of this realm.
Maybe it's good that this is blowing up. Maybe all the victims of the violent practices of ET can unite, take over and clean shop. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Really, Jerome, that is the language of the playground.
Of course we accepted it, solveig with tearful relief, because she was genuinely upset at the conflict, and we didn't think anything more of it. I don't think any neutral observer would say you were not aggressive on that occasion, whatever the rights and wrongs of the argument. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
A big rule in life is: one always finds a bigger asshole than oneself... In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
As for the Pirsig quote, the fact it contained the word "fanatically" clearly meant something to you, but certainly not to me. That's unfortunate. For my own part, I had put the Open Thread nonsense behind me two months ago, and little realised it still festered.
Now the point is that Jerome is also a well-meaning individual and the things that are said to him do hurt him (and this being "his" blog even things that are said between third parties leave him hurt and confused) and he does remember these things, which makes it non unexpected that he would take offence at the way you framed the Pirsig quote. After all, Jerome is the most vehement defender of the EU on this site, he even gets flak from me and DoDo for it. Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
a complaint about the sayway
