> I tried to read this sentence 3 times now, and I still do not know what it means. The same holds for entire paragraphs.
Is that sentence really that hard to read? I mean, it's definitely overly flowery, but it means almost word-for-word "After many financial crises, there is a lot of economic pessimism around again, even among free-market capitalism's biggest proponents."
The whole article is like this. Misunderstand one flowery phrase, misunderstand the entire sentence, misunderstand the whole paragraph. It's like the author hates convincing people.
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+booster
/shrug If those are familiar words to you, then I think it's a little harsh to say that they "hate convincing people" because they use them. Totally agree that a good author edits out rarer words to reach a broader audience, but I think that's a very weak vector of critique for the article as a whole.
> Several crashes later, the gloom has returned, and the signs of autumn are once again most recognizable in the pronouncements of free-market capitalism’s erstwhile boosters.
I tried to read this sentence 3 times now, and I still do not know what it means. The same holds for entire paragraphs.
IMO the author needs a healthy dose of http://web.princeton.edu/sites/opplab/papers/opp%20consequen...