I don't know why everyone thinks he said that people shouldn't discuss economics. What he said was that geeks overrate their competence and therefore their discussions tend to be stupid.
The more interesting question is why? Why the false expertise? Why the heir of authority? Why the certainty?. The conversations tend to be extremely emotional and defensive.
I actually don't see too much false expertise, or pretenses of authority, etc. People want to discuss things so they do. If it effects their lives, well, who's to say otherwise? Oh right, some jerk with a blog.
If the treasury department issues 750 billion dollars with my name on it, I'm frankly not much a citizen if I declare my unavoidable ignorance on the matter and so devote myself to my suitable recreations of drinking beer and watching football.
First, the premise of the article is that people bring false expertise and unfounded certainty to the topic at hand. That has pretty much nothing to do with the veracity of various youtube videos, or MSNBC.
Second, the presumption that I actually hold any of the beliefs in the final paragraph is completely misfounded and can only be rightly attributed to someone who didn't really read what I was trying to say and instead decided to pigeonhole my argument. I don't know what to think. I cannot make a compelling and satisfactory argument (to my standards) for or against a gold standard and I sure as hell don't trust "dudes on the internet" to give me a reasonable argument, either. The topic is sufficiently complex that any charlatan can waive his hand, throw up some smoke and mirrors, and put on a convincing case for just about anything. That is why I don't trust so-called "expose" youtube videos, either. Or, for that matter, MSNBC, since no one who goes on "pop" news is actually interested in educated the public on the finer points of macroeconomics but instead massaging it for their own political purposes.
Unlike the evolutionists, though, economists don’t have a mini-community of people making youtube videos and evangelizing their points of view to the general public.
Yes, there are economists who make youtube videos.
Programmers love to talk about quantum physics, the speed of light, and black holes. But you won’t find geeks getting all authoritative on the finer points of the event horizon? Why?
Economics is arguable because it is a soft science. We don't argue hard science because it's subject to controlled experiment. He's confusing apples and oranges.
Every, single, person in the discussion is an expert. Except, of course, they aren’t. None of them are.
Nope. Some of them are. He's confused "Some" with "None".
...blah blah. I'm picking up random sentences and they're all fucked up. If the point is to be funny, well, he failed at that as well.