[lapcat]

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

[CrazyStat]

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.

[lapcat]

> 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.

[CrazyStat]

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

[lapcat]

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.

[CrazyStat]

> 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.

[lapcat]

>> 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.