101–110 of 336 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the economy would run better (i.e. free market) without their "help". As if boom and bust business cycles aren't a thing in free markets. Or monopolies. Or monetary policy. Or externalized costs. Or tragedy of the commons. That's just run of the mill anti-intellectualism.
> That's just run of the mill anti-intellectualism. Respectfully, you just dismissed an entire school of economic thought out of hand.
There could be something else at work here. My father told me that con men preferred to go after smart people, like doctors. The reason is that smart people thought they were too smart to get conned, and hence were more gullible. He was also an economist, and told me that there wasn't an economist born who could stand the idea that the economy would run better (i.e. free market) without their "help". And I've noticed…
> the economy would run better (i.e. free market) without their "help". As if boom and bust business cycles aren't a thing in free markets. Or monopolies. Or monetary policy. Or externalized costs. Or tragedy of the commons. That's just run of the mill anti-intellectualism.
Obama related well to one part of the country, and Trump related well to another part of the country.
Trump's case being more surprising since he's tries very hard to come off as a class traitor. ex. Notice his love of the peoples food (fast food)
There could be something else at work here. My father told me that con men preferred to go after smart people, like doctors. The reason is that smart people thought they were too smart to get conned, and hence were more gullible. He was also an economist, and told me that there wasn't an economist born who could stand the idea that the economy would run better (i.e. free market) without their "help". And I've noticed…
> the economy would run better (i.e. free market) without their "help". That's impossible, because if the right answer is to leave the market alone then economists can help gather the political will to stay the visible hand - and if the right answer is to change things then the right person to have decide what to do is someone that has thought deeply about it, by definition making them an economist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And I've noticed many smart leaders who thought they were much smarter than they actually were, and didn't need to listen to others' advice, leading to some very poor decisions. There's a difference between smart people who are leaders and smart leaders. A smart leader should know how to hire smarter people and extract good advice/insight from those people.
What you’re defining is the difference between “smart leaders” and “good leaders”, mistakenly conflating “smart” with “good” which is precisely the parent’s point. You can have leaders who are good and smart, and you can have smart leaders who not good at leading.
Personal anecdote, but I wonder if my experience as a junior officer in the Navy helped with this. The last comments in the piece are that intelligent leaders should 1) seek creative metaphors and 2) speak charismatically. Coming to the fleet from a bachelor's in physics, I knew I was reasonably intelligent, but also that there were some people much smarter than me (at least my battered ego assured me of that). So, w…
There could be something else at work here. My father told me that con men preferred to go after smart people, like doctors. The reason is that smart people thought they were too smart to get conned, and hence were more gullible. He was also an economist, and told me that there wasn't an economist born who could stand the idea that the economy would run better (i.e. free market) without their "help". And I've noticed…
Nassim Taleb calls them IYI, Intellectuals Yet Idiots
Related: 'George W. Bush is smarter than you'. Elite leaders often make themselves look dumber than they really are. https://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/
this is a crock. it was a crock when it was written and it's still a crock now. the idea that someone can for 8 years in the spotlight disguise themselves so much so that appear wholly opposite is ludicrous. it takes months for professional actors to produce 90 minutes of performance - the guy was on camera for literally weeks. he's not "smarter than you" this kind of revisionist nonsense is politically motivated - p…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> people were saying the same exact thing about Trump before he took office and we are now all very sure it's not the case Don't be so sure. First, he outsmarted both political parties to become the most powerful man in the world. And in his first year as president, he's been far more effective at getting things done than most. The fact that some people dislike the things he's getting done doesn't take anything away…
> he's been far more effective at getting things done than most. You say this as we're on the brink of a government shutdown (a government controlled entirely by the President's party), which has been exacerbated by the President. The Senate Majority Leader (again, of the President's own party) said just yesterday the President is the primary impediment to keeping the government open, because no one knows what exactl…
Not quite. They cannot easily get by a filibuster.