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
