If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Naked Capitalism)   Malcolm Gladwell has apparently spent 10,000 hours being a right-wing corporate shill   (nakedcapitalism.com) divider line 94
    More: Interesting, Malcolm Gladwell, Philip Morris International, Philip Morris, Tony Snow, big tobacco, Assistant Secretary, Dinesh D'Souza, American Spectator  
•       •       •

3646 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Jun 2012 at 10:40 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



94 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-11 01:26:25 PM
<a target="_blank" href="http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_13_a_murray.html">Link</a>

Yes, he is such an unabashed conservative. Here is a great example of that: it's an article convincingly advocating for the state to rent homeless people apartments. It's conservative through and through.

What's that? The whole article seemed like sour grapes?

/That article I linked - Million Dollar Murray - is fantastic
 
2012-06-11 01:29:59 PM

James F. Campbell: FTA: This Philip-Morris document, titled "THIRD-PARTY MESSAGE DEVELOPMENT CONTACT LIST," lists Gladwell alongside dozens of notorious corporate promoters and right-wing journalists, ranging from Fox's mustachioed libertarian John Stossel, Bush press secretary and Fox News anchor Tony Snow, Grover Norquist, Milton Friedman and the head of the Heritage Foundation, Ed Feulner. This is a remarkable list, and it includes a disproportionate number of libertarians, like Reason magazine editor Jacob Sullum-whose role as a paid promoter of big tobacco was also exposed in the tobacco documents.


Did you read the article there, though? It makes an interesting point and the blog didn't address it at all. Smokers die earlier than normal people, people who are older cost the most money in health are, so the cost of smokers on the health care system is less than you'd think. That is interesting and it would have been a better article if they said whether or not that was true as opposed to guilt by association tactics.

Also, my stupid link isn't working.

http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_13_a_murray.html
 
2012-06-11 01:37:21 PM

DeArmondVI: "Debunking Economics" by Steve Keen is a far better read than anything I've come across from Gladwell or the Freakanomics guys.

/drtfa


So you didn't read the article and fell for a book that purports to "debunk" an entire academic field.

You sound considered in your opinions.
 
2012-06-11 02:06:07 PM
The author tries to dress it up with pejorative "right-wings" and "corporate shill"s and whatnot, and infer sinister motives, but his description of Gladwell's evolution into his present position sounds to me like an antibody being produced to counter a disease.
 
2012-06-11 02:10:10 PM

zetar: A friend was raving about Gladwell last week and specifically his thesis that Bill Gates success was due to his, "spending 80 hours a week programming since he was eight years old."

I said that Gates' success was due to being able to get $50k immediately from his father to buy QDOS from Tim Patterson (and thanks, Mrs. Gates for being on the Girl Scouts board with the Chairman of IBM!).

I haven't read of any of Gladwell's stuff, but apparently his thesis is that Gates was successful because he worked harder than you. I respectfully disagree.


Your friend is an idiot, then. Yes, Gladwell attributes *part* of Gates' success to hard work, but basically attributes equal parts to luck (being *good* at programming, having *access* to computers at a young age, getting into the business at the right time, etc).
 
2012-06-11 02:15:49 PM

zetar: A friend was raving about Gladwell last week and specifically his thesis that Bill Gates success was due to his, "spending 80 hours a week programming since he was eight years old."

I said that Gates' success was due to being able to get $50k immediately from his father to buy QDOS from Tim Patterson (and thanks, Mrs. Gates for being on the Girl Scouts board with the Chairman of IBM!).

I haven't read of any of Gladwell's stuff, but apparently his thesis is that Gates was successful because he worked harder than you. I respectfully disagree.



No, on the contrary. His whole point is that Gates (and Jobs) were "outliers" who were successful because of entirely serendipitous events that gave them a head start over the average Joe... such as affluent parents and connections and early access to technology that the general public, or even university-level computer science students wouldn't have access to for years.

His point about Gates spending 80 hours a week on a computer since he was in middle school is precisely that, thanks to the very wealthy parents of his prep school, he had 80 hours a week access to a direct access computer when virtually NO ONE ELSE could.... at a time when college programming students had to hand write their code and submit it to be transferred to cards and then run through the university's computer by someone else.

He doesn't discount Gates' hard work, but his whole argument is that Gates is successful because he was from a rich family and had access and entry that other similarly hard-working people simply couldn't match.
 
2012-06-11 02:16:26 PM
I know he was a shill for Prego!
 
2012-06-11 02:21:00 PM
I have a pretty good derpdar, and it never pegged as I read Gladwell.
I didn't read the whole article, but those right-wing schools mentioned at the beginning - they will typically offer free 'tuition' to outstanding leftists. A zealot is a zealot. A slight breeze can change them from one extreme to the other. They've turned plenty of good people into neocons, but you can't assume everyone who attends is a wingnut. I'd put Gladwell in the intellectually curious group.
 
2012-06-11 02:22:40 PM
...and he also makes the point that Gates and Jobs entered the computer field at a perfect "golden moment" between two paradigms... post-IBM and the hobbyist "homebrew" pre-mainstreaming of home computers.

He makes the point that if they were a few years older, they'd have entered the field through the established channels and not been the "revolutionaries" they were, and had they been a few years younger, they would have missed the window to do what they did.

The whole point of his book is very much debunking the retarded self-determination, pluck, boot-straps, and elbow grease notion of success, and pointing out that every great success story has at its heart several very serendipitous fortunate stokes of luck that can't be duplicated by mere hard work.

i.e. being in the right place at the right time with the right resources and knowing the right people
 
2012-06-11 02:26:51 PM
My whole take from Outliers was 'work hard and take advantage of opportunities.'

That only becomes derpy if you believe that rich and poor have equal opportunities.
 
2012-06-11 02:37:32 PM

BeesNuts: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7156286/77414093#c77414093" target="_blank">burndtdan</a>:</b> <i>James F. Campbell: For all the people defending Gladwell, let me put this out there to you. Gladwell implied in an article on his personal blog that Enron didn't do anything illegal:

"Can anyone explain-in plain language-what it is Jeff Skilling and Co. did wrong? . . . The question is strictly a legal one: according to the way the accounting rules were written at the time, what specific transgressions were Skilling guilty of that merited twenty-four years in prison?"

I don't know. Seems pretty farking evil to me to defend the Enron guys. But, hey, he's just asking questions right?

i'm not even particularly trying to defend gladwell, i find his writing to be thought-provoking at best but hardly meaningful in any large sense.

but he is asking a question, and you are saying through asking a question he is implying there is no answer. but he is not saying there is no answer, he's asking a question. you should never be afraid to ask a question, even if it questions common knowledge. if that common knowledge is correct, it can withstand the scrutiny, and if it can't withstand the scrutiny it's not correct.

and as someone who was studying accounting in college just after the enron situation, i can say it's not really a stupid question. the sarbanes-oxley act was written largely in response to enron, and put a lot of laws on the book that codified that some of the things that enron did *were* illegal. but before that point, they weren't.

enron did some illegal things, but there was a lot of careless mixing between the laws they broke and the things they did that were just despicable and later became illegal.</i>

I completely disagree. The tone of his question is asinine, and belies an ulterior motive in asking it.

"<b>Can anyone explain-in plain language</b>-what it is Jeff Skilling and Co. did wrong? . . . ...


That's possible, but what would be telling is how he responds to any answers he receives. Any chance you could link to the actual post where he said this? (If you already have, then I apologize for not seeing it...)
 
2012-06-11 02:37:48 PM

Dear Jerk: I have a pretty good derpdar, and it never pegged as I read Gladwell.


Me too, and it seems like some of those accusations in TFA are reaching a bit. The tobacco article for instance. It may not be pleasant to think that tobacco use lowers healthcare costs (since most of the expense is in old age which tobacco users are less likely to achieve), and it might be a point that tobacco companies would kind-of/sort-of want to push (though it's a fine line to walk), but does that make him an industry shill? I recall the Freakonomics! chapter on how abortion may have influenced the crime rate X numbers of years down the road. The left hates the idea that the poor/minorities who are more likely to use abortion services are also the source for crime, and the right hates the idea of anything positive coming out of an abortion. Sometimes the truth of the matter isn't ideologically convenient.
 
2012-06-11 03:11:15 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Dear Jerk: I have a pretty good derpdar, and it never pegged as I read Gladwell.

Me too, and it seems like some of those accusations in TFA are reaching a bit. The tobacco article for instance. It may not be pleasant to think that tobacco use lowers healthcare costs (since most of the expense is in old age which tobacco users are less likely to achieve), and it might be a point that tobacco companies would kind-of/sort-of want to push (though it's a fine line to walk), but does that make him an industry shill? I recall the Freakonomics! chapter on how abortion may have influenced the crime rate X numbers of years down the road. The left hates the idea that the poor/minorities who are more likely to use abortion services are also the source for crime, and the right hates the idea of anything positive coming out of an abortion. Sometimes the truth of the matter isn't ideologically convenient.


Well, yeah, this.

I like the Freakonomics guys and Gladwell for the same reason I like Mythbusters - and reference the xkcd comic about them as it's appropriate.

We need more people actually looking at *data* and validating their ideological views, even when the data shows otherwise.

Liberals probably hate Gladwell as they interpret him as saying that all you need is hard work, which sounds really bootstrappy.

Conservatives hate him since he says "hey, you need a fair amount of luck to be a Bill Gates."

In reality he says that you need both. Luck without work, and work without luck are both irrelevant.
 
2012-06-11 03:22:57 PM

Avonmore: So, since Gladwell's views tend to run on the conservative side, that somehow invalidates his arguments?

He's just a writer. He's not really an authority figure on anything he writes about, he just does some research, and writes what he thinks. What's wrong with that exactly? If you don't like his viewpoints, you are free to stop reading. Better yet, do your own research and figure out why you think Gladwell is wrong.

What's the problem here?


Well said. The stuff he writes is a lot of fun to read. I really don't care about his politics. If I disagree with his conclusions I'm just going to disagree with his conclusions. And I really don't think Gladwell would get his feelings hurt.
 
2012-06-11 03:25:42 PM
FTA is bs. its all guilt by association and non-sense. People are allowed to be conservatives as long as they don't write false things or hurt people or whatever.
 
2012-06-11 03:26:36 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: balloot: Not to mention that you can make an argument that Gladwell causing anyone to write that much in an attempted refutation means he is performing superbly at his craft. Gladwell isn't trying to be right about everything - he's just trying to get people to think. And it appears he did exactly that with whoever writes this crappy blog.

You could make the same defense for Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, etc. Just because you elicit a reaction out of someone doesn't mean you are practicing a "craft". A monkey throwing feces and garbage at preschoolers elicits a reaction, but I wouldn't call what it is doing a "craft".

I'm not putting Gladwell in the same camp as these other "craftsmen" (the monkey included), BTW. I'm just saying that a "reaction == success" argument is too broad to be useful.


---------------

Gladwell is fundamentally different than at least two of those (Coulter, Beck) because he actually makes reasonable points to spur debate. Coulter and Beck don't do this because the debate would begin and ends with "75% of the shiat you say is untrue and/or ridiculous hyperbole".

O'Reilly is a bit different, and not coincidentally far more successful in the long term, because he does make many reasonable points. There's a reason both Stewart and Colbert prefer to have him on their shows instead of other pundits from the other side of the aisle. And there's a reason he'll actually do the shows.
 
2012-06-11 03:29:17 PM
Well, that was a waste of time. Even by Fark standards, this was a poorly-written article.
 
2012-06-11 03:51:26 PM

Rapmaster2000: That said, the only Gladwell book I really like is "Blink". Sometimes Gladwell sounds like he's channelling Thomas Friedman. In Outliers, he beats you over the head with the same thesis for 250 pages. In Tipping Point, he creates far too many annoying buzzwords.


I have personally longed to see a televised Gladwell/Friedman death match.
 
2012-06-11 04:24:42 PM

Polyhazard: Rapmaster2000: That said, the only Gladwell book I really like is "Blink". Sometimes Gladwell sounds like he's channelling Thomas Friedman. In Outliers, he beats you over the head with the same thesis for 250 pages. In Tipping Point, he creates far too many annoying buzzwords.

I have personally longed to see a televised Gladwell/Friedman death match.


Friedman's incredible ego, awful writing, and incessant name-dropping would make me root for Gladwell. Seriously, I have no idea how Friedman has been as successful as he has been. His success to me is as mysterious as that of Thomas Kincade or Neal Boortz.
 
2012-06-11 04:31:45 PM

FLMountainMan: Polyhazard: Rapmaster2000: That said, the only Gladwell book I really like is "Blink". Sometimes Gladwell sounds like he's channelling Thomas Friedman. In Outliers, he beats you over the head with the same thesis for 250 pages. In Tipping Point, he creates far too many annoying buzzwords.

I have personally longed to see a televised Gladwell/Friedman death match.

Friedman's incredible ego, awful writing, and incessant name-dropping would make me root for Gladwell. Seriously, I have no idea how Friedman has been as successful as he has been. His success to me is as mysterious as that of Thomas Kincade or Neal Boortz.


Friedman is more mysterious to me than those other two. Kincade is accessible. Boortz panders. I have no idea what people get out of Friedman.
 
2012-06-11 04:34:04 PM

FarkedOver: Avonmore: So, since Gladwell's views tend to run on the conservative side, that somehow invalidates his arguments?

He's just a writer. He's not really an authority figure on anything he writes about, he just does some research, and writes what he thinks. What's wrong with that exactly? If you don't like his viewpoints, you are free to stop reading. Better yet, do your own research and figure out why you think Gladwell is wrong.

What's the problem here?

Which is what the writer of TFA was trying to do?


Well, yes, but you needed to take out all the outraged adjectives and shocked adverbs to discover that.

I'm no Gladwell fan; but the author of this article makes it sound like he's personally responsible for every conservative viewpoint in recent history AND THAT SHOULD BE WRONG!!!! Or something. I'm not sure how attacking a writer for having an opinion which he buttresses with facts because he's conservative is demonstrating how wrong he is. All I can get from this article is that taking any position opposed to Levine's, and being moderately zealous about it, is evil media hackery and should be abolished forthwith. Are we supposed to be horrified--as Levine clearly is--that Gladwell went to a conservative journalism school and was a devotee of Reaganomics?

Sorry, Levine, but you're the one who looks shrill and partisan here.
 
2012-06-11 04:35:02 PM

Ishkur: I, too, have aspirations of compiling incredibly obtuse observations into very opaque tracts and then claim wisdom.


Then you should buy my book, where I explain how this seemingly contradictory phenomenon occurs, and how you can use opaque-tracting to advance your own career.

In the first three chapters, I describe three crucial elements that are needed for opaque-tracting to occur. I call them thick-slicing, the iceberg lettuce rule, and the power of the lack of power of non-context.

Let me first demonstrate the power of the unconscious mind with a story about how some bigots instinctively know they don't like a black man. In less than a second they somehow make this complex decision, proving that we have massive unconscious computational reserves. What happens if we start retraining bigots to perform protein-folding computations? It just might bring about a sea change in the way we think about stuff.
 
2012-06-11 04:44:52 PM

FLMountainMan: Polyhazard: Rapmaster2000: That said, the only Gladwell book I really like is "Blink". Sometimes Gladwell sounds like he's channelling Thomas Friedman. In Outliers, he beats you over the head with the same thesis for 250 pages. In Tipping Point, he creates far too many annoying buzzwords.

I have personally longed to see a televised Gladwell/Friedman death match.

Friedman's incredible ego, awful writing, and incessant name-dropping would make me root for Gladwell. Seriously, I have no idea how Friedman has been as successful as he has been. His success to me is as mysterious as that of Thomas Kincade or Neal Boortz.



Huh???

In Outliers, he covers quite a lot of different ground... from the initial discussion about how much a part serendipity and less-than-obvious advantages play in success, to how cultural differences have drastic impacts on how we function and relate to the world.

From how The Beatles playing 10,000 hours in a Hamburg strip club made them expert musicians, to how the echoes of honor culture led to the feud between the Hatfields and McCoys and can still be measured in southerners today, to how Asian airliners had a tendency to crash because pilots were too polite to questions air traffic control towers and co-pilots too respectful to question pilots.
 
2012-06-11 04:46:07 PM
Ooops, just realized that should have been to Rapmaster2000 .
 
2012-06-11 04:53:43 PM

zetar: A friend was raving about Gladwell last week and specifically his thesis that Bill Gates success was due to his, "spending 80 hours a week programming since he was eight years old."

I said that Gates' success was due to being able to get $50k immediately from his father to buy QDOS from Tim Patterson (and thanks, Mrs. Gates for being on the Girl Scouts board with the Chairman of IBM!).

I haven't read of any of Gladwell's stuff, but apparently his thesis is that Gates was successful because he worked harder than you. I respectfully disagree.


He doesn't say that all how about reading his farking.book before incorrectly spouting off on it you ignorant dumbass. Gladwell states specifically luck of when gates was born had a shiat ton to do with it, along with computing access and other items. The 10k hours is in reference to when can become an expert. Guitarists, programming, hockey, whatever. Access and luck were bigger components.
 
2012-06-11 05:05:21 PM

MyRandomName: He doesn't say that all how about reading his farking.book before incorrectly spouting off on it you ignorant dumbass. Gladwell states specifically luck of when gates was born had a shiat ton to do with it, along with computing access and other items.


But was he caught sayof when he has caught handstandsing?
 
2012-06-11 05:17:10 PM
If Gladwell is a conservative, shouldn't he be pilloried for not being enough of a conservative?
 
2012-06-11 05:29:50 PM
If you spend 10,000 hours hating then you can write an article on how much you hate successful writers and do the exact same thing he does??? Use small bits of information and then connect it to larger bits. This then connects you with big bad corporations.

Gladwell once appeared on NBC which is owned by GE. We all know General Electric's (GE) goal of broadening its $1 billion nuclear service-and-parts business with sales of new reactors so clearly he supports Ahmadinejad because Mahmoud wants a nuclear weapon; therefore Gladwell denies the Holocaust ever happened and wants to bomb Israel.

Haters Gonna Hate.

I spent 10000 hours jacking it. Now I am a Masturbatory Master. It's like a Jedi but you know a different light-saber.
 
2012-06-11 05:37:55 PM
I've read all of his books and I never really looked for a political slant. What I got out of them is the need to challenge the conventional wisdom. That's all.
 
2012-06-11 05:47:20 PM

YoungLochinvar: BeesNuts: <b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7156286/77414093#c77414093" target="_blank">burndtdan</a>:</b> <i>James F. Campbell: For all the people defending Gladwell, let me put this out there to you. Gladwell implied in an article on his personal blog that Enron didn't do anything illegal:

"Can anyone explain-in plain language-what it is Jeff Skilling and Co. did wrong? . . . The question is strictly a legal one: according to the way the accounting rules were written at the time, what specific transgressions were Skilling guilty of that merited twenty-four years in prison?"

I don't know. Seems pretty farking evil to me to defend the Enron guys. But, hey, he's just asking questions right?

i'm not even particularly trying to defend gladwell, i find his writing to be thought-provoking at best but hardly meaningful in any large sense.

but he is asking a question, and you are saying through asking a question he is implying there is no answer. but he is not saying there is no answer, he's asking a question. you should never be afraid to ask a question, even if it questions common knowledge. if that common knowledge is correct, it can withstand the scrutiny, and if it can't withstand the scrutiny it's not correct.

and as someone who was studying accounting in college just after the enron situation, i can say it's not really a stupid question. the sarbanes-oxley act was written largely in response to enron, and put a lot of laws on the book that codified that some of the things that enron did *were* illegal. but before that point, they weren't.

enron did some illegal things, but there was a lot of careless mixing between the laws they broke and the things they did that were just despicable and later became illegal.</i>

I completely disagree. The tone of his question is asinine, and belies an ulterior motive in asking it.

"<b>Can anyone explain-in plain language</b>-what it is Jeff Skilling and Co. did wro ...


Tags got all farky... hm... Lemme try that again.
 
2012-06-11 06:00:07 PM
Trial number 2!

burndtdan: i'm not even particularly trying to defend gladwell, i find his writing to be thought-provoking at best but hardly meaningful in any large sense.

but he is asking a question, and you are saying through asking a question he is implying there is no answer. but he is not saying there is no answer, he's asking a question. you should never be afraid to ask a question, even if it questions common knowledge. if that common knowledge is correct, it can withstand the scrutiny, and if it can't withstand the scrutiny it's not correct.


I completely disagree. The tone of his question is asinine, and belies an ulterior motive in asking it.

"Can anyone explain-in plain language-what it is Jeff Skilling and Co. did wrong? . . . The question is strictly a legal one: according to the way the accounting rules were written at the time, what specific transgressions were Skilling guilty of that merited twenty-four years in prison?" - Malcolm Gladwell re Enron

Gladwell asks the reader to answer a "strictly legal explanation" of what Jeff Skilling and Co did wrong vis a vis accounting rules as they were written at the time. "In plain language."

His use of the innocent phrase "can anyone explain?" implies, to me at least, that he believes nobody can. Or more specifically, that nobody, in his rather vast experience, has.

If you answer: "He and his staff of executives hid *billions* of dollars in debt from the board and from investors and urged (read: bribed) auditors to ignore known, risky financial behavior. Practices which resulted in economic losses totaling over 10 billion dollars."

It's not a "strictly legal" explanation

If you answer: "Conspiracy, Securities Fraud, Making False Statements to Auditors, and Insider Trading are illegal, and he was found guilty of all of those crimes in the court of law."

It's too vague and tautological.

If you elaborate on the legal intricacies of all those accusations, and how he committed these crimes, and in what capacity...

It's not plain language.

He wrote a trap rhetorical question. I don't like it.

That's all I was saying. It wasn't clear, what with the atrocity I committed against formatting upthread.
 
2012-06-11 06:04:06 PM

BeesNuts: I completely disagree. The tone of his question is asinine, and belies an ulterior motive in asking it.


Absolutely correct. That's why I preemptively mocked everyone who responded to my post with some variant of "BUT HE'S JUST ASKING QUESTIONS!"

YoungLochinvar: Any chance you could link to the actual post where he said this?


I don't care to link to Gladwell's blog and give him more hits than he deserves. Here's the response from Brad DeLong, a Professor Economics at UC-Berkeley. In the article, it states that Gladwell received such flak for defending Enron that he eventually called everyone "grouchy" and told them to take a "chill pill."

Everyone in this thread defending Malcolm "I'm just asking questions!" Gladwell's defense of Enron is an intellectually dishonest scumbag piece of shiat. Deflect harder, assholes.
 
2012-06-11 06:59:14 PM
I've always wondered what Carrot Top's real name was.
 
2012-06-11 07:25:15 PM

James F. Campbell: BeesNuts: I completely disagree. The tone of his question is asinine, and belies an ulterior motive in asking it.

Absolutely correct. That's why I preemptively mocked everyone who responded to my post with some variant of "BUT HE'S JUST ASKING QUESTIONS!"

YoungLochinvar: Any chance you could link to the actual post where he said this?

I don't care to link to Gladwell's blog and give him more hits than he deserves. Here's the response from Brad DeLong, a Professor Economics at UC-Berkeley. In the article, it states that Gladwell received such flak for defending Enron that he eventually called everyone "grouchy" and told them to take a "chill pill."

Everyone in this thread defending Malcolm "I'm just asking questions!" Gladwell's defense of Enron is an intellectually dishonest scumbag piece of shiat. Deflect harder, assholes.


To answer Malcolm's question, and the actual problem in the Skilling case, is that Skilling was charged with violation of a law that was unclear at the time, the so-called "honest services" statute and the accompanying issue of whether Skilling was guilty of fraud and insider trading if he personally did not benefit. (The insider trading laws require knowledge and personal benefit, among other things) Skilling's argument was that he didn't personally benefit from Enron's fraud as he was charged, and that the government was applying an ex post facto definition to his case by saying the result of LATER cases should have affected the charges in his case.

The USSC reversed his conviction on the "honest services" fraud, because Skilling personally received no bribes or kickbacks, holding the law was vague as to whether merely working for the company constituted "personal gain." Now the courts are working through which, if any, of his other convictions are nullified because of the fraud reversal.

Essentially, Skilling was tried and convicted for being a greedy bastard and working for a corrupt board of directors--but so far that's not strictly illegal. Like I said many moons ago when the Occupy movement first hit the streets, nothing Enron did was illegal except the fraud: Hence, if there is no fraud, there is no crime. I'm hardly suggesting that's right; but currently, it is the law.
 
2012-06-11 07:55:35 PM
Hi everyone:

"Yves" is a gal, FYI.

Carry on.
 
2012-06-11 09:51:51 PM
http://spectator.org/people/malcom-gladwell/all

That is all.

/at least if we know the kind of quality content American Spectator puts out.
 
2012-06-11 10:46:57 PM
I just finished Blink today so I'm getting a kick etc.
 
2012-06-11 10:51:06 PM

James F. Campbell: BeesNuts: I completely disagree. The tone of his question is asinine, and belies an ulterior motive in asking it.

Absolutely correct. That's why I preemptively mocked everyone who responded to my post with some variant of "BUT HE'S JUST ASKING QUESTIONS!"

YoungLochinvar: Any chance you could link to the actual post where he said this?

I don't care to link to Gladwell's blog and give him more hits than he deserves. Here's the response from Brad DeLong, a Professor Economics at UC-Berkeley. In the article, it states that Gladwell received such flak for defending Enron that he eventually called everyone "grouchy" and told them to take a "chill pill."

Everyone in this thread defending Malcolm "I'm just asking questions!" Gladwell's defense of Enron is an intellectually dishonest scumbag piece of shiat. Deflect harder, assholes.


Your refusal to link to the source throws your credibility into serious doubt.

Perhaps DeLong should've actually EXPLAINED why, exactly, Enron wasn't in a "gray area" while acknowledging that such areas exist. HE failed with his rebuttal. You (and he) may well (and, given that it's Enron, probably ARE) right, but he neglected to point out the difference between "misleading but legal" and "what Enron did is not that and is totally illegal". How am I supposed to judge anything when DeLong offers nothing but blanket assertions that he is right?
 
2012-06-11 10:58:10 PM

YoungLochinvar: James F. Campbell: BeesNuts: I completely disagree. The tone of his question is asinine, and belies an ulterior motive in asking it.

Absolutely correct. That's why I preemptively mocked everyone who responded to my post with some variant of "BUT HE'S JUST ASKING QUESTIONS!"

YoungLochinvar: Any chance you could link to the actual post where he said this?

I don't care to link to Gladwell's blog and give him more hits than he deserves. Here's the response from Brad DeLong, a Professor Economics at UC-Berkeley. In the article, it states that Gladwell received such flak for defending Enron that he eventually called everyone "grouchy" and told them to take a "chill pill."

Everyone in this thread defending Malcolm "I'm just asking questions!" Gladwell's defense of Enron is an intellectually dishonest scumbag piece of shiat. Deflect harder, assholes.

Your refusal to link to the source throws your credibility into serious doubt.

Perhaps DeLong should've actually EXPLAINED why, exactly, Enron wasn't in a "gray area" while acknowledging that such areas exist. HE failed with his rebuttal. You (and he) may well (and, given that it's Enron, probably ARE) right, but he neglected to point out the difference between "misleading but legal" and "what Enron did is not that and is totally illegal". How am I supposed to judge anything when DeLong offers nothing but blanket assertions that he is right?


And now I'm guilty of being ambiguous myself. More specifically, DeLong offers no examples of what constitutes "misleading BUT not illegal". His failure to do so makes it very difficult to determine whether Gladwell is just being an obtuse ass or if the "gray area" legitimately seems to overlap with "Enron fraud" to a lay observer (such as myself).
 
2012-06-11 11:49:16 PM

YoungLochinvar: And now I'm guilty of being ambiguous myself. More specifically, DeLong offers no examples of what constitutes "misleading BUT not illegal". His failure to do so makes it very difficult to determine whether Gladwell is just being an obtuse ass or if the "gray area" legitimately seems to overlap with "Enron fraud" to a lay observer (such as myself).


I answered that above already. The law that Skilling was prosecuted under was held to be essentially void for vagueness because it didn't clarify what was fraud and insider trading, and what was merely working for a company who was engaged in such practices. The misleading gray areas are exactly that: Misleading and gray, and Skilling's verdicts had to be appealed based on a Court ruling that voided his fraud conviction.

Insider trading and financial fraud requires both knowledge and personal benefit (because otherwise reading the stock reports could be considered "insider trading", and it has been prosecuted as such); but Skilling never "personally benefited" from the kickbacks Enron was receiving. That had to be cleared up before the rest of the convictions could be considered.
 
2012-06-12 08:44:25 AM

James F. Campbell: Everyone in this thread defending Malcolm "I'm just asking questions!" Gladwell's defense of Enron is an intellectually dishonest scumbag piece of shiat. Deflect harder, assholes.


I'd like to point out that this is ... not the case either.
 
2012-06-12 09:14:17 AM

YoungLochinvar: YoungLochinvar: James F. Campbell: BeesNuts: I completely disagree. The tone of his question is asinine, and belies an ulterior motive in asking it.

Absolutely correct. That's why I preemptively mocked everyone who responded to my post with some variant of "BUT HE'S JUST ASKING QUESTIONS!"

YoungLochinvar: Any chance you could link to the actual post where he said this?

I don't care to link to Gladwell's blog and give him more hits than he deserves. Here's the response from Brad DeLong, a Professor Economics at UC-Berkeley. In the article, it states that Gladwell received such flak for defending Enron that he eventually called everyone "grouchy" and told them to take a "chill pill."

Everyone in this thread defending Malcolm "I'm just asking questions!" Gladwell's defense of Enron is an intellectually dishonest scumbag piece of shiat. Deflect harder, assholes.

Your refusal to link to the source throws your credibility into serious doubt.

Perhaps DeLong should've actually EXPLAINED why, exactly, Enron wasn't in a "gray area" while acknowledging that such areas exist. HE failed with his rebuttal. You (and he) may well (and, given that it's Enron, probably ARE) right, but he neglected to point out the difference between "misleading but legal" and "what Enron did is not that and is totally illegal". How am I supposed to judge anything when DeLong offers nothing but blanket assertions that he is right?

And now I'm guilty of being ambiguous myself. More specifically, DeLong offers no examples of what constitutes "misleading BUT not illegal". His failure to do so makes it very difficult to determine whether Gladwell is just being an obtuse ass or if the "gray area" legitimately seems to overlap with "Enron fraud" to a lay observer (such as myself).


I thought Brad DeLong was pretty clear and succinct in his answers.

The false valuation of securities and the use of Separate Entities to hide liabilities. Fraud.

And the timing of Gladwells argument is important as well, just as congress was taking up consideration of undoing or weakening the stringent corporate accounting rules of Sarbanes Oxley.

Gladwell is not a journalist, he's an Ad man who's been trained in journalism. His purpose is not to present facts, it is to obfuscate facts. He is a propagandist. He is a corporate tool that's been wielded by the tobacco industry, Pharmaceuticals industry and finance for the sole purpose of confusing the critics of these industries.
 
2012-06-12 09:21:01 AM

Gyrfalcon: YoungLochinvar: And now I'm guilty of being ambiguous myself. More specifically, DeLong offers no examples of what constitutes "misleading BUT not illegal". His failure to do so makes it very difficult to determine whether Gladwell is just being an obtuse ass or if the "gray area" legitimately seems to overlap with "Enron fraud" to a lay observer (such as myself).

I answered that above already. The law that Skilling was prosecuted under was held to be essentially void for vagueness because it didn't clarify what was fraud and insider trading, and what was merely working for a company who was engaged in such practices. The misleading gray areas are exactly that: Misleading and gray, and Skilling's verdicts had to be appealed based on a Court ruling that voided his fraud conviction.

Insider trading and financial fraud requires both knowledge and personal benefit (because otherwise reading the stock reports could be considered "insider trading", and it has been prosecuted as such); but Skilling never "personally benefited" from the kickbacks Enron was receiving. That had to be cleared up before the rest of the convictions could be considered.


Thanks, I did see that and *meant* to thank you for providing an example of a *good* answer...
 
2012-06-12 03:36:27 PM
O'Reilly is a bit different, and not coincidentally far more successful in the long term, because he does make many reasonable points. There's a reason both Stewart and Colbert prefer to have him on their shows instead of other pundits from the other side of the aisle. And there's a reason he'll actually do the shows.

I cant buy the points that O'Reilly is successful in the long term because he is more reasonable than say, Ann Coulter or that that is also the reason he is invited to other competing shows. O'Reilly to me is more like Beck, a tv buffoon who pretends he is an actual journalist. Ive seen his show far too many times to believe he isnt anything but a glorified Current Affair host who understands very little about politics and applied economics, but understands everything about creating simple soundbite psuedo-facts to drive up ratings.
 
Displayed 44 of 94 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report