This style of writing is plainly not objective. It's clearly meant to inflame emotions as opposed to engaging intellects. I don't like it. I don't know enough about international politics and macroeconomics to propose arguments for or against his conclusions. He himself doesn't present any arguments with premises that I can investigate or inferential links I can question the logic of. Overall this is a terrible article even if everything he says is true. It's an article written for a very particular audience that already agrees with the author 100% and so he has no need or motivation to defend his claims.
Glad you liked it ;p The article presents a different narrative. You are right, there is not a lot of substantiation going on. I'd make that same criticism about most articles outside academic papers, though. We're just more used to accepting the assumptions those "Forbes", "Business Insider" and NYT articles make, because they're repeated a lot. That's why I got into the habit of doing the fact-checking myself if an article's proposition strikes me as remarkable / plausible but insufficiently documented. Maybe you think it's neither - and that's fine, too.
Fact is, I don't consider the "official" narrative about what's going on with our economies terribly plausible. It'd be nice if we were able to somehow show a message before someone is sent to a link. It'd be good to let people know what one thinks is interesting about a site, offer additional information or caveats.
I do appreciate the alternative narrative, and I find most articles on economics and international politics from most places equally poor for the same reasons. Definitely no debating that. I don't know much about economics but I do know that something isn't right just because it sounds plausible. This goes for economics, it goes for physics, it goes for chemistry, it goes for biology, it goes for psychology, it goes for anything. There's usually more than one equally plausible explanation for any given occurrence, and I'd say this applies here. This narrative doesn't strike me as any more plausible than the typical narrative presented by most mainstream sources. Humans failing to accurately predict human behavior and set up appropriate monetary systems and safeguards to account for human behavior seems just as plausible to me as "an elaborate Kabuki theater run by international financiers and globalists" in order to trick the global public into supporting their end goals. The only way to decide which is more likely to be true to reality is, as you said, to check the facts presented and to question the logic of the arguments presented. I just wish this article presented more facts and more arguments. The ideas are interesting and compelling, but so is the idea that aliens helped ancient Egyptians construct the pyramids.
You know what, I agree. I'll try to find an article which offers more in the way of debatable arguments and verifiable facts next time. Guess I still have to get used to people actually reading things instead of just using them as an excuse to get their oppinion out there :)I just wish this article presented more facts and more arguments. The ideas are interesting and compelling, but so is the idea that aliens helped ancient Egyptians construct the pyramids.