It's a bad and misleading analogy, because most readers will understand it as "companies are richer than countries"--which is probably exactly the feeling that Jacobin wants to evoke. I wouldn't accept such an analogy from a right wing news source (Fox News, say), and I won't accept it from a left wing news source.

To build on your analogy, it's like saying "if you laid all the people in the world in a line it would circle the globe N times" but not mentioning the fact that you're lining them up belly to back instead of head to toe.

We should hold ourselves to a higher standard.

> most readers will understand it as "companies are richer than countries"

Says who? You're not giving readers much credit.

No, I'm not. Most people don't understand the details of either corporate or national accounting, and the very important difference between an annual production measure like GDP vs a total market value measure like market cap will be lost on them, especially in passing.

Again you're speaking for "Most people" with no empirical evidence or polling.

Let me take a turn though: "Most people" aren't reading a Jacobin article at all. The only relevant audience is the readers of this article.

Unfortunately readers of Jacobin are perhaps particularly unlikely to understand the details of corporate and national accounting.

You're one of them.

Only in passing.

Thereby admitting that you actually know nothing about readers of Jacobin, and your slur was completely unjustified.

Bad reasoning. I bet you don't watch Newsmax, but you probably know some things about people who watch Newsmax.

I wanted to make a joke about it being exactly the kind of reasoning a Jacobin reader would use, but I'm refraining.

> I bet you don't watch Newsmax, but you probably know some things about people who watch Newsmax.

I don't, and I don't.

> I wanted to make a joke about it being exactly the kind of reasoning a Jacobin reader would use, but I'm refraining.

I'm not a regular Jacobin reader, "only in passing" as you say.

In any case, you're just spouting stereotypes invented in your own mind.

No, I've had enough Jacobin readers misinterpret Adam Smith to me to form an informed opinion.

Have you? How many, exactly?

In any case, it's not clear why interpreting Adam Smith (1723-1790) is an appropriate criterion here. Of course, I don't grant without evidence that you possess a correction interpretation of Adam Smith. FWIW (not much) I read The Wealth of Nations many years ago, though I don't claim to be a Smith scholar, and I have no wish to debate the matter with you. I just find it strange that you feel the need to drag him into this discussion.

> Have you?

Yes.

> In any case, it's not clear why interpreting Adam Smith (1723-1790) is an appropriate criterion here.

Because it speaks to both their reading comprehension and grasp of economics.

>> Have you?

> Yes.

You didn't answer my crucial follow-up question: "How many, exactly?"

> Because it speaks to both their reading comprehension and grasp of economics.

Not really. There's actually been quite a bit of work on that subject since the 18th century, if you hadn't heard.

What makes that follow-up question crucial?

The claim was "I've had enough Jacobin readers misinterpret Adam Smith to me to form an informed opinion." So the question is, how many do you believe is enough to justify the claim that your opinion is informed? Otherwise it would appear to be an unjustified overgeneralization based on extremely limited anecdotes.

Your guess would be incorrect. One doesn't need to be a Jacobin reader to meet Jacobin readers.

Also you didn't explain why this question is crucial.

Obviously it's crucial, because keep avoiding it, refusing to answer, while defensively asking why it's crucial instead of simply answering. It's not like I'm asking for your social security number here.

I did actually explain why, though: "Otherwise it would appear to be an unjustified overgeneralization based on extremely limited anecdotes."

It's crucial because obviously it's crucial!