naked capitalism

attempter says:

Does this speak for all the participants?:

I thought this a very effective trick to sweep an issue aside, a kind of jujitsu by which the official would render very sharp comments harmless by moving with rather than fighting against the questioner. After this move, the only possible disagreement is a judgment call about which of many problems is most pressing, and whose judgment would be better than that of a senior official immersed daily in the practicalities of policy? Twice Treasury officials commented on how uncommon a group we were, how we asked particularly pointed questions or were unusually bright. To borrow a cliché, I’ll bet they say that to all the groups. One official made use of an expletive early in his discussion, which had the effect of making us feel like insiders, like this was not the sort of canned, guarded conversation one might see on CNN. The same official was quick to address us by first name when responding to questions. That wasn’t hard, since our names were in front of us, written on placards in large letters. But it was still effective. Being addressed so familiarly makes you feel important, like you are someone powerful people deem worth their while to know.

Being so impressed by such obvious tricks? Calling people by name?

Still impressed by “expertise” in this area? After how monumentally wrong almost everyone was, at the highest levels of expertise, education, reputation, I would’ve thought that never again would anyone be able to claim or appeal to “authority” on economic matters.

Whose judgment would be better than that of a senior official immersed daily in the practicalities of policy?

I don’t know, any bum selected at random out of an alley?

Even as a teenager I used to laugh at how fatuous (and patronizing) it was when someone said, “Now that’s a good question!”

And I stopped being impressed by swear words probably by around age 12.