Rhetorical Pet Peeve

[Merryprankster]

Yeah, it's true they pay for them. In fact, that's one of the first things they admit! But it doesn't make their knowledge any less expert

Or Special heh-heh.

I'm pretty aware the Economy isn't affected as much by Government shenanigans as we'd like to think. Unless the actions are drastic one way or the other.

Again, he's an expert in his field though. Regardless of how valuable you believe his field or position to be...

[Suntzu]

the economy is well regulated… thanks to the SEC… Greenspan and thel like… you know with the intrest rates… unemployment figures… deregulation/regulation… inflation… recession… GNP… exchange rate… etc… etc… gotta keep the economic cycle going…

[KC Elbows]

My rhetorical pet peeve cam down with parvo and I had to shoot the little guy. Glad to see Merry's is still doing well.

[Merryprankster]

SunTzu,

Agreed--I guess what I was trying to get at is that the fed can't fundamentally alter the market--they can make subtle adjustments that show effect over time, but they can't make a sick man well---or a well man sick--immediately.

[Surferdude]

Pretty good....you???

[@PLUGO]

My Pet Peeve is the sad fact that most California Drive completly forget how to drive when more than a millimeter of rain drops...

Having learned to Drive in the snow & sleet of New York (which I left behind for the warmer weather of Cali) I'm constantly amazed at the lack of driving sence evident in the collective consciousness of California Freeways...

While one the subject...

Why does eveyone out here call 'em Freeways while the cops are "California HIGHWAY patrol"????

must be some liberal Californian Conspiracy...

[myosimka]

And also remember your source material. For example, the websites that you pointed out are all trial lawyers sites. Ie. biased in favor of the validity of suits. And that's clear in the bent. If you followed the case at the time, you got a totally different story. Also it is routinely overlooked that the decision was reversed on appeal. Not trying to defend McDonald's, just trying to point out that sometimes even factual sites don't tell the tale. Especially if there is an inherent bias.

[Merryprankster]

Trial lawyer sites are open websites for use by trial lawyers. Some trial lawyers work for Corporations, others are consumer advocates. I recall that the decision was not reversed on appeal, but that the appellate court reduced the monetary award to somewhere around $400K. I could be wrong. Still, the argument about this case usually revolves around it being a "frivolous law suit," and demonstrating the need for tort reform. It's clear, however, if you read the facts, that the woman had a legitimate case, whether you agree or disagree with the outcome, the findings of fact remain.

Only one of the websites I posted was a consumer law website, which incidentally, got the burn percentage wrong. One is the Delaware Bar Association website, and the other is something called 'lectric law, whatever that is.

The findings of fact are the findings of fact. The reason you or others may not have heard the facts about the case when it happened is largely because of anecdotal hullaballoo and blather from opinion columnists, pundits and the intellectually lazy who managed to get published or receive air time--which, I might add, ties in nicely with your comment about "considering the source." A good example is that I never take the Boston Globe or the Wall Street Journal at face value when it comes to social issues .

Again, that case is exactly why you can't use opinion and editorials to back up your points. They are useful for offerring a different POV or perhaps suggesting questions or angles you haven't thought of, but they certainly lend no weight to an argument.

[eulerfan]

Originally posted by Suntzu
and Greenspan… expert??? Naaawwwww… he's the pupetmaster in this economy illusion… right now things are just a lil out of his control…believe me… I have a degree in accounting… so I'm an expert… or am I a specialist

But Greenspan has a doctorate in economics and has worked for 25 some-odd years as an economist. So, if he says something about economics, it is being said by somebody who really understands the subject. Regardless of his current situation, he is an expert on economics. You, personally, may not trust his expertise, but he is an expert.

One the other hand, a college drop out who spent his whole life working in radio stations is no more of an expert on economics than I am.

[rubthebuddha]

Originally posted by eulerfan
One the other hand, a college drop out who spent his whole life working in radio stations is no more of an expert on economics than I am.

euler, my dear, you are far more the expert -- at least you can apply the math you have.

problem -- educated folk, like our dear eulerfan, don't have a radio show to which easily persuaded folk listen to regularly. instead, halfwits with charisma like rush DO have a show and an audience of dimwits.

problem2 -- charisma is a far more effective tool to persuade the masses than logic. consider greenspan vs. limbaugh arguing about economic policy. greenspan, with years of education and experience, much of it through trial and error and learning what works. limbaugh speaks his heart (or other organ) on a variety of issues with which he has little or no experience. but limbaugh is charismatic, and greenspan is about as exciting as watching concrete dry. so we get the uninformed being led by the uninformed, while the informed are relegated to metaphors like the one just mentioned.