Erudition and Inanity

Thanks, The Economist:

When it comes to most dangerous products—be they drugs, cigarettes or fast cars—this newspaper advocates a more [classically] liberal approach than the American government does. But when it comes to handguns, automatic weapons and other things specifically designed to kill people, we believe control is necessary, not least because the failure to deal with such violent devices often means that other freedoms must be curtailed. Instead of a debate about guns, America is now having a debate about campus security.

I recommend that you all subscribe; it’s excellent. Much of their content is also available online for free. I promise I’ll return to technical stuff soon. link

The Economist’s economics blog, Free Exchange, explains why punditry veers into the bizarre. Read the rest of the post for the justification, but here’s the key bit:

If you want to be on television, you need to be the chap saying something that is

1. Unequivocal
2. Something no one else is saying
3. Testable

There’s no money in sensible, predictable advice. Anyone can give you THAT. People latch on to sensationally successful, novel predictions and tend to ignore or write off the failures. To become a pundit, predict something remarkable that no one else is predicting and be right about it once. Then make sure everyone hears about it.

That having been said, it is possible to lose your credibility eventually. Just look at John C Dvorak.