[JshWright]

Apparently I've triggered some deep seated angst... Let me try to clarify what I meant, and maybe you'll feel better?

This post didn't present any new 'facts' for me. I was already aware of all the details he explained (and most, but not all, of the implications of those details). My point was simply that by framing shares as currency presented them in a way that I had never considered before, and that comparison caused a number of other things to 'click.'

My apologies if my learning offended you...

[adwf]

I think it's safe to say he's just being unpleasant for the sake of it. The old adage of "If you've got nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all." springs to mind.

I thought that shares as currency was an interesting analogy to draw too. Although I guess when you get down to it, anything that's reasonably fungible can be considered currency if you feel like it.

[AsymetricCom]

Not at all, now that I've learned about your learning, we can all discuss how happy that makes us feel. It's a win-win.

Wait, maybe if there was a higher context to share our approval of the article without distracting away from its content? Like some kind of high-level rating system that was enforced through a framework of some sort and presented as a low-friction indicator of the quality of the article? We could even improve it by presenting the highest quality articles above the fold.

Of course then content that appealed to the lowest common denominator would become the most approved, and people could congregate around shared understanding and beliefs, further cementing those ideas as the "right ideas".

Only if there were some social rules that would prevent this "circle jerking" behavior that causes forums to devolve into roaming bands of up-vote brigades. We could start by not "circle jerking" about the quality of the article, we could probably go a long way toward reducing congratulatory posts that celebrate elementary-level understanding of economic systems, and in turn, encourage feel good comments that are up-voted because people agree with them instead of them actually contributing anything.

[JshWright]

It seems I'm woefully ignorant in the ways of online forum posting...

I had assumed that excerpting a specific portion of TFA and highlighting why I found it particularly insightful would have been germane to the conversation thread.

If only there was a way you could have expressed your opinion that my comment didn't add anything to the conversation without resorting to sarcasm and obtuse rhetoric... (Unless you haven't crossed the 'able to down-vote threshold yet... in which case, no worries).

[kibibu]

Are you ok? You seem inordinately upset about someone pointing out a particular point in the article that resonated with them.

[trg2]

You are not nice.

[valleyer]

Seek help.