Dumbest editorial ever

[IDUDOYOU]

This is from Richard Mellon Scaife's newspaper, The Pittsburgh Tribune Review.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/s_147228.html

[Boreas]

1. I bet he wrote it himself

The bi-partisan gum flapper's knee jerk reaction to stepping in dog's business unfortunately killed this grotesque tool of the economic ignorami.

Got it?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

2. Oh yeah, real accurate.

Right up there with reading the entrails of a goat. Just ask Enron.

[peacetalksforall]

3. God, help us if we have to believe this propoganda

If futures and market watching was such a good barometer for predictions, then someone should explain what happened with the total lack of response to the put option failing.

No other airlines were gambled with. The activity on the two airlines that were showed a catapult of activity in put options on the appropriate days just before 9-11. This is obvious from the statistics kept.

So what happened to observation and action.

Futures is the ultimate insult.

Not linking the two irrevocably is another insult.

Any paragraphs or statements in support of this ludicrous and evil idea should not write one more word without telling us what went wrong with AA and UA and what looks like insiders. We can't even investigate that infamous incident. Guess we're protecting the innocent (or guilty).

[ProfessorGAC]

4. What This Editorial Shows Is. . .

. . .that the writer's grasp of economics is at or precariously close to nil.

There is NOT ONE basic economic principle that supports the contention that this stupid idea would have created an iota of warning, prediction, or intelligence. The writer suggests that the naysayers don't have the understanding of the applications of basic economics, but fails to mention exactly what theory or hypothesis in basic economics would apply. I wonder why!

Besides, this moron hasn't even figured out that the markets are a financial instrument and are only indirectly linked to economic constructs. Therefore, it would be even less likely that even more sophisticated economic principles would apply in the way suggested by felon Poindexter.

So, i'll make it clear for idiots like the Gazette's editorialist: The reason why i castigated the idea is BECAUSE IT'S A STUPID IDEA WITH ZERO BENEFIT! When someone shows me proof that there is any reasonable rendering of economic theory that supports such predictive approaches, i'll reconsider. In the meantime, i'll call stupid what i recognize as stupid.
The Professor

[Sentath]

7. Should theory be updated?

I have heard several things that markets can do to make plain 'distributed or even hidden' knowledge.

Most of it sounds like variations on post hoc ergo propter hoc, but that could just be me...

[yellowcanine]

5. This is great

The Bushies want nothing more than for this story to go away. If the loonie right is defending this nonsense that will just make more people aware of it. To a person, the people that I know are just flabbergasted by this story. Everyone thinks it is a hoax when they first hear it. As a guy I know once said - "you can polish a turd but it is still a turd." Yes, one can make some intellectual arguments that markets may have some predictive power - but one just can't get around the notion that this program allows people to bet on and profit from tragic events - there is something sick about that and trying to argue otherwise just shows how out of touch and Machiavellian the current regime is. Even Wolfie tried to laugh it off as "maybe a little too imaginative" (boys will be boys, doncha know?) - Barbara Boxer nailed him good for that one and had him backpedalling so fast he almost tripped over the Fox News reporter attached to his butt.

[realFedUp]

6. you are relatively new

and may not know the rules for posting in here, but please
for all our sakes, put the author and the header line of the
commentary in the subject line.

[Composed Thinker]

8. You might be right

That might be the dumbest thing I've ever read.

[gratuitous]

9. Stupid is as stupid does

It has been said that a cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. I would say that the "free market" devotees think that price is a sure indicator of value. That is, if "market forces" are applied to any problem, any situation, the answer will magically fall out at the end of the process.

The argument is that we'll surely get good intelligence from the application of market forces, because the "smart money" will inevitably gravitate toward the right choice. The analysis, puerile in the extreme, overlooks the incontrovertible fact that markets can be manipulated, misleading or just plain wrong information drives many economic choices, and even with a perfect flow of accurate information to all investors, some people are going to make different choices than other people.

Some things just aren't subject to a cost/benefit analysis. Ideologues who think otherwise are as foolish as religious fundamentalists, and just as self-deceiving and dangerous.

[MrBenchley]

10. Un-frigging-believable

This has less thought in it than Bob Boudelang's take on the same subject...and I wrote THAT for laughs.

[tom_paine]

11. Busheviks and Insider Trading

First off, this opens up other countries to do similar things with no compunctions.

"The Empire is doing it, why shouldn't we?"

Second, the danger of insider tarding. We all STRONGLY SUSPECT that the Busheviks are not above utilizing poltical assassinations and assassinations of all types to rid themselves of troublesome people like Kennedy Kennedy King Tower Heinze Salem Bin Laden Kennedy Jr. Carnahan Wellstone Hatfield Baxter Kelly (hey, maybe some of them were accidents,suicides, or lone gunmen, but I'd be willing to wager on the Terror Futures Market that not ALL were).

So now you have a 9-11 situation (just who did make those "put options" on Amerikan Airlines -- guess we'll never know) except people are betting on things.

With billions at stake, what makes anyone think Busheviks won't do what they do best...fraud and insider trading...on this as with everything else.

This is a bad idea on so many levels, not to mention morally reprehensible.

So, of course it stands to reason that Busheviks support it wholeheartedly.

[anti_shrub]

12. You should hear my mom

We subscribe to Pittsburgh's other paper, the Post Gazette, which is pretty liberal. We get telemarketer calls from the Scaife rag that beg us to dump the PG for theirs. Mom's always home during the day since she doesn't have a car, and she gets her enterainment when she can. When the Scaife bots call she reads off a laundry list of reasons why she would never ever subscribe to their rag, which usually leaves the telemarketer sputtering in disbelief.