Elizabeth Warren: oppose me and I will ruin you

[maxparrish]

Some of you have early onset amnesia; the OP's point is not over the merits of his paper, or his testimony, or a bogus vagueness in the disclosure of a potential conflict interest. And it's certainly not about how Warren was just helping Brookings manage their own internal rules of affiliation.

It's about Warren's engineered attack in late September (two months after his testimony), and what it tells us about her politics and character. The tale of this remorseless character from "Serial Mom" began in early July, when Robert Litan testified on his paper and its findings. Litan had been a non-Resident Senior Fellow at Brookings, and his co-author Singer is still a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute. Both are economists of stature, Litan being associated with Brookings for 40 years (part of which included his being a Brookings Vice-President and director of economic research). His bio includes service in the Clinton administration, 25 books, and over 200 academic journal articles.

As a supporter of Ms. Warren and of her previous proposals, Mr. Litan might have supposed he would have the open minded ear of Ms. Warren. Clearly he did not appreciate the distinction between his own experience of collegial liberal disagreements, and Warren's progressive-populist politics that dictate that anyone who disagrees with her must be acting in venal bad faith.

Ms. Warren was reputedly very displeased with his testimony, not happy with a comrade expressing the wrong thoughts. Yet according to Litan "She never asked me any questions at the hearing about the report. She has never (even) engaged the substance of the report."

Ms. Warren, a lawyer, wasn't after (or capable of) discussing an economic argument or disagreement, but she was capable and after getting his "contrary thinking" scalp. As with much of the left, Warren was on the warpath of "who and how he was bought you off", even though all the sources of funding had already been fully disclosed. Not good enough.

So Warren approached Litten after the hearing and requested more information about his funding; he voluntarily provided her with "specific details on the amount of financial support provided." He told her that he was paid the princely sum of $38,800 by Economists Inc. and also informed her that the authors allowed the funder, Capital Group, review a copy and provide feedback.

For over two months nothing happened, but she had not forgotten. Warren's campaign to ambush and smear Litan was launched September 22nd at 8:30AM. The Washington Post reported online a letter Ms. Warren sent to Brookings to discredit him and, indirectly, Brookings. "Twitter lit up, with her fans demanding Mr. Litan’s head. “If @BrookingsInst has integrity will loudly fire ‘scholar’ Robert Litan today, declare new policies. (but) If not . . .” tweeted David Cay Johnston, a left-wing writer, at 8:52. By 9:30 Mr. Litan was gone."

The carefully crafted letter had little of substance to complain over, so she was forced to smear Litan (and his co-author) with innuendo, lurid speculation, and carefully crafted misrepresentations. She hoped to intimidate Brookings into recanting its association with this left heretic. The craft of her bullying of Brookings worth reviewing:

Warren initially stated was merely requesting information on conflicts of interest and the "editorial and substantive content of studies to which Brookings lend their name". Oh sure.

Predictably, within a few sentences Warren's sinister innuendo begins with the unproven assumption that "some funding sources call into question" his work, and her actual interest in the "substantive content of studies to which Brookings lend their name" amounted to nothing more than her assurance that the co-author's work was "wildly inconsistent" with other work, without bothering to explain explain how.

But why should she have bothered to challenge his actual scholarship? Rather, Ms. Warren quotes another Brookings insider who also questions the bias of generic non-independent research, and Warren intones this "appeared to be directed" at Litan. There you have it, TWO suspicious and hostile folks - what more proof is needed?

And, did you know, he told her two months ago he didn't work for pro bono? My goodness, what a scalawag.

Warren' letter is a tour de force of innuendo - Warren says "he provided important information about the credibility of his analysis", the "co-authors" taking sole responsibility for the analysis and conclusions "appears inconsistent". Moreover his disclosure was "broad but (too) vague" for Warren's satisfaction, meaning that Litan published the requisite disclosure, and answered all her questions in session and right after his testimony. (Gee, how unhelpful).

Worst of all, he told Warren he got some feedback from the firm that funded the report, and got a referral to look at a few citations he may not have been aware of. Gasp, the whole report is "problematic".

So then, why (she warned in the letter) would Brookings allows him to use his affiliation to lend credibility "to a work that is both highly financially compensated and editorially compromised by an industry player seeking a specific conclusion", by someone "bought and paid for research lacking in merit".

Oh my. Attack the source of his funding, and then claims he is "bought and paid" for, without a parsley sprig of evidence.

(To be Continued)....

 

[untermensche]

...Warren's progressive-populist beliefs that dictate that anyone who disagrees with her must be acting in venal bad faith...

The carefully crafted letter had little of substance in the mud-gunning, so it had to smear Litan (and his co-author) with innuendo, lurid speculation, and carefully crafted misrepresentations

The rhetoric is so thick it is difficult to wade through.

Anybody who has ever had any education on scientific research knows the first thing you look at are potential biases.

And if there are potential biases the research is considered less reliable until it is replicated.

 

[Axulus]

Yep, I'm referring to the 2015-9-28 Brookings Letter. You want to discuss the specifics?

sure. go for it.

show me the vitriol and venom the vile vexing vamp Warren spew and strew upon her innocent victim

It's a bit difficult because I can't copy and paste the text on that .pdf. I'll try to analyze it point by point.

Letter is here for quick reference:

http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2015-9-28_Warren_Brookings_ltr.pdf

-The fact that she contacts the Brookings Institution has no merit in the first place. Nowhere does Dr. Litan say that this research was conducted or funded in any way by the Brookings Institution. He disavows any notion that the research is independent by disclosing his source of funding twice. His mistake was to mention on the written testimony (but not the verbal testimony) that he holds a position at the Brookings Institution, done to bolster his legitimate professional qualifications. A violation of a new rule implemented by the Brookings Institution just a few months prior at an institution he had been affiliated with for 40 years. No one is confused about whether the Brookings Institution funded the study, Ms. Warren most likely realized he violated the new rule and took full advantage of it to harm him personally.

Think of an analogy - it would be like a professor at a university declaring their position as a professor of X at University Y, and then having a letter sent to the university questioning claims that the university's mission is to conduct independent fact based research, simply because that professor also happened to be conducing non-independent research in a consulting capacity unaffiliated with the university.

-Despite there being no merit in contacting the Brookings Institution, the tone of the first paragraph conveys intimidation. She is conducting an investigation into their affairs using the power of her office. She immediately calls into question the independence of the research conducted by the Brookings Institution and essentially says she is investigating their independence claim, that they need to prove themselves to her and her office.

-Her sentence about "because there's a loophole in the law, it is often perfectly legal for those advisers to push that lousy product." This is factually false. If an adviser knowingly recommends an inferior product for their customer in order to benefit themselves, they are in violation of the Advisors Act, passed in 1940.

The SEC has continuously made it clear subsequent to Capital Gains that the Act imposes on investment advisers an affirmative duty to their clients of utmost good faith, full and fair disclosure of all material facts, and an obligation to employ reasonable care to avoid misleading their clients.

http://www.nrs-inc.com/Events-Calendar/Understanding-Fiduciary-Duties-under-the-Advisers-Act1/

-She then portrays Dr. Litan as nothing more than an industry hack because an unnamed "many" have found these conclusions surprising and "wildly" inconsistent with other findings. However, if she had actually bothered to carefully consider the testimony, he points out areas that these other studies failed to address in their cost/benefit analysis. Furthermore, she states that the research demonstrates that investors are losing billions due to bad advice, as if that rebuts his claims. Once again, she didn't even bother to listen to what his claims are. He _explicitly_ acknowledges that the proposed rule will save investors these billions they are losing from bad advice, but then goes on to argue that there are _other costs_ to investors that will result from the proposed rule and that such harm _is in excess_ of these billions in benefits.

-She then presents the same straw-man again, this time by Jane Dokko, another Brookings Institution affiliated individual, about the billions in losses to investors from bad advice. Something, which bears repeating again, was already explicitly acknowledged and accepted by Dr. Litan in his analysis.

-She then accuses him of having a vauge disclosure about his relationship with the Capital Group, when anyone even remotely familiar with these types of disclosures would immediately be able to tell that the Capital Group funded the study and thus the research is not independent, nor was it ever claimed to be so.

-In the next paragraph, during his questioning, he honestly and forthrightly provided additional details on exactly how much he was paid to do the study. And yet Ms. Warren still tries to make it seem like he was trying to hide it all along.

-In the final part, she lists all her demands for a document request, every organizational document she can get her hands on from the Bookings Institution that in any way relates to their rules, conflict of interest policy, communications between Brookings and Capital Group, and Dr. Litan. Essentially the tone and color of a subpoena, to intimate and cause hardship for the Bookings Institution due to its association with Dr. Litan.

After the letter was received, Dr. Litan was pressured to promptly resign.

Do you think it is a good thing that a US Senator takes actions that forces the resignation of someone in a prestigious professional position all because they opposed her policy and she didn't like the fact that industry paid for the study (which was CLEARLY disclosed and elaborated upon further during the question session)?

- - - Updated - - -

The carefully crafted letter had little of substance in the mud-gunning, so it had to smear Litan (and his co-author) with innuendo, lurid speculation, and carefully crafted misrepresentations

The rhetoric is so thick it is difficult to wade through.

Anybody who has ever had any education on scientific research knows the first thing you look at are potential biases.

And if there are potential biases the research is considered less reliable until it is replicated.

Are you trying to claim that Dr. Litan was forced to resign his professional position because she looked into his biases? Biases which he disclosed and willingly acknowledged in his testimony for all the world to see? Really? Are you that incredulous?

 

[maxparrish]

The carefully crafted letter had little of substance in the mud-gunning, so it had to smear Litan (and his co-author) with innuendo, lurid speculation, and carefully crafted misrepresentations

The rhetoric is so thick it is difficult to wade through.

Anybody who has ever had any education on scientific research knows the first thing you look at are potential biases.

And if there are potential biases the research is considered less reliable until it is replicated.

Anyone who has such a science education, looks for bias IN THE WORK. If you imply or accuse someone of dishonesty in his/her work, you attack the work, not the source (or the source's funding).

Rather elementary.

 

[maxparrish]

sure. go for it.

show me the vitriol and venom the vile vexing vamp Warren spew and strew upon her innocent victim

It's a bit difficult because I can't copy and paste the text on that .pdf. I'll try to analyze it point by point.

Letter is here for quick reference:

http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2015-9-28_Warren_Brookings_ltr.pdf

-The fact that she contacts the Brookings Institution has no merit in the first place. Nowhere does Dr. Litan say that this research was conducted or funded in any way by the Brookings Institution. He disavows any notion that the research is independent by disclosing his source of funding twice. His mistake was to mention on the written testimony (but not the verbal testimony) that he holds a position at the Brookings Institution, done to bolster his legitimate professional qualifications. A violation of a new rule implemented by the Brookings Institution just a few months prior at an institution he had been affiliated with for 40 years. No one is confused about whether the Brookings Institution funded the study, Ms. Warren most likely realized he violated the new rule and took full advantage of it to harm him personally.

Think of an analogy - it would be like a professor at a university declaring their position as a professor of X at University Y, and then having a letter sent to the university questioning claims that the university's mission is to conduct independent fact based research, simply because that professor also happened to be conducing non-independent research in a consulting capacity unaffiliated with the university.

-Despite there being no merit in contacting the Brookings Institution, the tone of the first paragraph conveys intimidation. She is conducting an investigation into their affairs using the power of her office. She immediately calls into question the independence of the research conducted by the Brookings Institution and essentially says she is investigating their independence claim, that they need to prove themselves to her and her office.

-Her sentence about "because there's a loophole in the law, it is often perfectly legal for those advisers to push that lousy product." This is factually false. If an adviser knowingly recommends an inferior product for their customer in order to benefit themselves, they are in violation of the Advisors Act, passed in 1940.

The SEC has continuously made it clear subsequent to Capital Gains that the Act imposes on investment advisers an affirmative duty to their clients of utmost good faith, full and fair disclosure of all material facts, and an obligation to employ reasonable care to avoid misleading their clients.

http://www.nrs-inc.com/Events-Calendar/Understanding-Fiduciary-Duties-under-the-Advisers-Act1/

-She then portrays Dr. Litan as nothing more than an industry hack because an unnamed "many" have found these conclusions surprising and "wildly" inconsistent with other findings. However, if she had actually bothered to carefully consider the testimony, he points out areas that these other studies failed to address in their cost/benefit analysis. Furthermore, she states that the research demonstrates that investors are losing billions due to bad advice, as if that rebuts his claims. Once again, she didn't even bother to listen to what his claims are. He _explicitly_ acknowledges that the proposed rule will save investors these billions they are losing from bad advice, but then goes on to argue that there are _other costs_ to investors that will result from the proposed rule and that such harm _is in excess_ of these billions in benefits.

-She then presents the same straw-man again, this time by Jane Dokko, another Brookings Institution affiliated individual, about the billions in losses to investors from bad advice. Something, which bears repeating again, was already explicitly acknowledged and accepted by Dr. Litan in his analysis.

-She then accuses him of having a vauge disclosure about his relationship with the Capital Group, when anyone even remotely familiar with these types of disclosures would immediately be able to tell that the Capital Group funded the study and thus the research is not independent, nor was it ever claimed to be so.

-In the next paragraph, during his questioning, he honestly and forthrightly provided additional details on exactly how much he was paid to do the study. And yet Ms. Warren still tries to make it seem like he was trying to hide it all along.

-In the final part, she lists all her demands for a document request, every organizational document she can get her hands on from the Bookings Institution that in any way relates to their rules, conflict of interest policy, communications between Brookings and Capital Group, and Dr. Litan. Essentially the tone and color of a subpoena, to intimate and cause hardship for the Bookings Institution due to its association with Dr. Litan.

After the letter was received, Dr. Litan was pressured to promptly resign.

Do you think it is a good thing that a US Senator takes actions that forces the resignation of someone in a prestigious professional position all because they opposed her policy and she didn't like the fact that industry paid for the study (which was CLEARLY disclosed and elaborated upon further during the question session)?

- - - Updated - - -

The carefully crafted letter had little of substance in the mud-gunning, so it had to smear Litan (and his co-author) with innuendo, lurid speculation, and carefully crafted misrepresentations

The rhetoric is so thick it is difficult to wade through.

Anybody who has ever had any education on scientific research knows the first thing you look at are potential biases.

And if there are potential biases the research is considered less reliable until it is replicated.

Are you trying to claim that Dr. Litan was forced to resign his professional position because she looked into his biases? Biases which he disclosed and willingly acknowledged in his testimony for all the world to see? Really? Are you that incredulous?

Aux, that was an excellent summary of the letter; I too was frustrated by the inability to copy text.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

sure. go for it.

show me the vitriol and venom the vile vexing vamp Warren spew and strew upon her innocent victim

It's a bit difficult because I can't copy and paste the text on that .pdf. I'll try to analyze it point by point.

Letter is here for quick reference:

http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2015-9-28_Warren_Brookings_ltr.pdf

-The fact that she contacts the Brookings Institution has no merit in the first place. Nowhere does Dr. Litan say that this research was conducted or funded in any way by the Brookings Institution. He disavows any notion that the research is independent by disclosing his source of funding twice. His mistake was to mention on the written testimony (but not the verbal testimony) that he holds a position at the Brookings Institution, done to bolster his legitimate professional qualifications. A violation of a new rule implemented by the Brookings Institution just a few months prior at an institution he had been affiliated with for 40 years. No one is confused about whether the Brookings Institution funded the study, Ms. Warren most likely realized he violated the new rule and took full advantage of it to harm him personally.

Think of an analogy - it would be like a professor at a university declaring their position as a professor of X at University Y, and then having a letter sent to the university questioning claims that the university's mission is to conduct independent fact based research, simply because that professor also happened to be conducing non-independent research in a consulting capacity unaffiliated with the university.

-Despite there being no merit in contacting the Brookings Institution, the tone of the first paragraph conveys intimidation. She is conducting an investigation into their affairs using the power of her office. She immediately calls into question the independence of the research conducted by the Brookings Institution and essentially says she is investigating their independence claim, that they need to prove themselves to her and her office.

-Her sentence about "because there's a loophole in the law, it is often perfectly legal for those advisers to push that lousy product." This is factually false. If an adviser knowingly recommends an inferior product for their customer in order to benefit themselves, they are in violation of the Advisors Act, passed in 1940.

The SEC has continuously made it clear subsequent to Capital Gains that the Act imposes on investment advisers an affirmative duty to their clients of utmost good faith, full and fair disclosure of all material facts, and an obligation to employ reasonable care to avoid misleading their clients.

http://www.nrs-inc.com/Events-Calendar/Understanding-Fiduciary-Duties-under-the-Advisers-Act1/

-She then portrays Dr. Litan as nothing more than an industry hack because an unnamed "many" have found these conclusions surprising and "wildly" inconsistent with other findings. However, if she had actually bothered to carefully consider the testimony, he points out areas that these other studies failed to address in their cost/benefit analysis. Furthermore, she states that the research demonstrates that investors are losing billions due to bad advice, as if that rebuts his claims. Once again, she didn't even bother to listen to what his claims are. He _explicitly_ acknowledges that the proposed rule will save investors these billions they are losing from bad advice, but then goes on to argue that there are _other costs_ to investors that will result from the proposed rule and that such harm _is in excess_ of these billions in benefits.

-She then presents the same straw-man again, this time by Jane Dokko, another Brookings Institution affiliated individual, about the billions in losses to investors from bad advice. Something, which bears repeating again, was already explicitly acknowledged and accepted by Dr. Litan in his analysis.

-She then accuses him of having a vauge disclosure about his relationship with the Capital Group, when anyone even remotely familiar with these types of disclosures would immediately be able to tell that the Capital Group funded the study and thus the research is not independent, nor was it ever claimed to be so.

-In the next paragraph, during his questioning, he honestly and forthrightly provided additional details on exactly how much he was paid to do the study. And yet Ms. Warren still tries to make it seem like he was trying to hide it all along.

-In the final part, she lists all her demands for a document request, every organizational document she can get her hands on from the Bookings Institution that in any way relates to their rules, conflict of interest policy, communications between Brookings and Capital Group, and Dr. Litan. Essentially the tone and color of a subpoena, to intimate and cause hardship for the Bookings Institution due to its association with Dr. Litan.

After the letter was received, Dr. Litan was pressured to promptly resign.

Do you think it is a good thing that a US Senator takes actions that forces the resignation of someone in a prestigious professional position all because they opposed her policy and she didn't like the fact that industry paid for the study (which was CLEARLY disclosed and elaborated upon further during the question session)?

- - - Updated - - -

The carefully crafted letter had little of substance in the mud-gunning, so it had to smear Litan (and his co-author) with innuendo, lurid speculation, and carefully crafted misrepresentations

The rhetoric is so thick it is difficult to wade through.

Anybody who has ever had any education on scientific research knows the first thing you look at are potential biases.

And if there are potential biases the research is considered less reliable until it is replicated.

Are you trying to claim that Dr. Litan was forced to resign his professional position because she looked into his biases? Biases which he disclosed and willingly acknowledged in his testimony for all the world to see? Really? Are you that incredulous?

I don't read the sinister undertones in the letter that you do. Sorry, I have read it now multiple times and I am just not getting it.

I think you do have a point though about the timing of the letter. It is late in the game, so to speak. There may be something there.

I have not read anywhere where she threatened to ruin anyone, nor did she ask for Brookings to fire anyone.

My reading of the letter isn't that she is going after Litan so much, but Capital Group.

 

[Axulus]

It's a bit difficult because I can't copy and paste the text on that .pdf. I'll try to analyze it point by point.

Letter is here for quick reference:

http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2015-9-28_Warren_Brookings_ltr.pdf

-The fact that she contacts the Brookings Institution has no merit in the first place. Nowhere does Dr. Litan say that this research was conducted or funded in any way by the Brookings Institution. He disavows any notion that the research is independent by disclosing his source of funding twice. His mistake was to mention on the written testimony (but not the verbal testimony) that he holds a position at the Brookings Institution, done to bolster his legitimate professional qualifications. A violation of a new rule implemented by the Brookings Institution just a few months prior at an institution he had been affiliated with for 40 years. No one is confused about whether the Brookings Institution funded the study, Ms. Warren most likely realized he violated the new rule and took full advantage of it to harm him personally.

Think of an analogy - it would be like a professor at a university declaring their position as a professor of X at University Y, and then having a letter sent to the university questioning claims that the university's mission is to conduct independent fact based research, simply because that professor also happened to be conducing non-independent research in a consulting capacity unaffiliated with the university.

-Despite there being no merit in contacting the Brookings Institution, the tone of the first paragraph conveys intimidation. She is conducting an investigation into their affairs using the power of her office. She immediately calls into question the independence of the research conducted by the Brookings Institution and essentially says she is investigating their independence claim, that they need to prove themselves to her and her office.

-Her sentence about "because there's a loophole in the law, it is often perfectly legal for those advisers to push that lousy product." This is factually false. If an adviser knowingly recommends an inferior product for their customer in order to benefit themselves, they are in violation of the Advisors Act, passed in 1940.

The SEC has continuously made it clear subsequent to Capital Gains that the Act imposes on investment advisers an affirmative duty to their clients of utmost good faith, full and fair disclosure of all material facts, and an obligation to employ reasonable care to avoid misleading their clients.

http://www.nrs-inc.com/Events-Calendar/Understanding-Fiduciary-Duties-under-the-Advisers-Act1/

-She then portrays Dr. Litan as nothing more than an industry hack because an unnamed "many" have found these conclusions surprising and "wildly" inconsistent with other findings. However, if she had actually bothered to carefully consider the testimony, he points out areas that these other studies failed to address in their cost/benefit analysis. Furthermore, she states that the research demonstrates that investors are losing billions due to bad advice, as if that rebuts his claims. Once again, she didn't even bother to listen to what his claims are. He _explicitly_ acknowledges that the proposed rule will save investors these billions they are losing from bad advice, but then goes on to argue that there are _other costs_ to investors that will result from the proposed rule and that such harm _is in excess_ of these billions in benefits.

-She then presents the same straw-man again, this time by Jane Dokko, another Brookings Institution affiliated individual, about the billions in losses to investors from bad advice. Something, which bears repeating again, was already explicitly acknowledged and accepted by Dr. Litan in his analysis.

-She then accuses him of having a vauge disclosure about his relationship with the Capital Group, when anyone even remotely familiar with these types of disclosures would immediately be able to tell that the Capital Group funded the study and thus the research is not independent, nor was it ever claimed to be so.

-In the next paragraph, during his questioning, he honestly and forthrightly provided additional details on exactly how much he was paid to do the study. And yet Ms. Warren still tries to make it seem like he was trying to hide it all along.

-In the final part, she lists all her demands for a document request, every organizational document she can get her hands on from the Bookings Institution that in any way relates to their rules, conflict of interest policy, communications between Brookings and Capital Group, and Dr. Litan. Essentially the tone and color of a subpoena, to intimate and cause hardship for the Bookings Institution due to its association with Dr. Litan.

After the letter was received, Dr. Litan was pressured to promptly resign.

Do you think it is a good thing that a US Senator takes actions that forces the resignation of someone in a prestigious professional position all because they opposed her policy and she didn't like the fact that industry paid for the study (which was CLEARLY disclosed and elaborated upon further during the question session)?

- - - Updated - - -

The carefully crafted letter had little of substance in the mud-gunning, so it had to smear Litan (and his co-author) with innuendo, lurid speculation, and carefully crafted misrepresentations

The rhetoric is so thick it is difficult to wade through.

Anybody who has ever had any education on scientific research knows the first thing you look at are potential biases.

And if there are potential biases the research is considered less reliable until it is replicated.

Are you trying to claim that Dr. Litan was forced to resign his professional position because she looked into his biases? Biases which he disclosed and willingly acknowledged in his testimony for all the world to see? Really? Are you that incredulous?

I don't read the sinister undertones in the letter that you do. Sorry, I have read it now multiple times and I am just not getting it.

I think you do have a point though about the timing of the letter. It is late in the game, so to speak. There may be something there.

I have not read anywhere where she threatened to ruin anyone, nor did she ask for Brookings to fire anyone.

My reading of the letter isn't that she is going after Litan so much, but Capital Group.

I just don't see what she was trying to accomplish with the letter without the assumption that she was trying to harm his reputation and cause issues for him with the Bookings Institution. I'm interested in hearing your suggestions on this point.

-Was she confused about whether Brookings Institution funded or supported the study? Why? No claims where ever made to suggest such. I'm just not buying she was confused here which is why I believe other motives were at play, especially in light of the additional details he provided about the relationship with Capital Group during the question period after his testimony two months prior to this letter of hers.

-Why was it necessary to request every document related to their rules and conflict of interest policy, and all their communications related to this paper between the org, Dr. Litan, and Capital Group? Wasn't he already very forthcoming about who funded the study and how much he personally received during the question period? What more is there to investigate?

-Intimidation is itself threatening. How do you think an organization you are part of would react if a senator demanded a variety of documents on their rules and conflict of interest and every communication you had with the organization because of some sort of critical position you took against that senator (whether you were biased or not, that seems to me to be completely irrelevant)?

-Industry funding a study like this is pretty typical. How else are they going to get someone to conduct lengthy and time consuming research that may be beneficial their cause? You'll rarely see people do it out of the goodness of their hearts and, when they don't, what are you supposed to do? The research and testimony itself is still in the public interest (when the funding source is properly disclosed, which it was in this case) as a free, open and democratic society should consider all points of view before implementing a new law or regulation. Even more so when that point of view is coming from the stakeholder materially impacted by that law or regulation. They especially have a right for their point of view to be heard in my opinion. No one things their point of view isn't going to be biased. Just because a point of view is biased doesn't mean the claims they make have no legitimacy or credibility.

-The fact that an industry funded this study merits much more detailed scrutiny and analysis of the methods, analysis and conclusions of the study itself. No one is saying Ms. Warren doesn't have a right to determine additional details on his methods, sources, etc. Had she written a letter to Dr. Litan to get clarification on how he conducted his analysis, what additional assumptions were used, and why he used those assumptions, and then used that information gathered to challenge the conclusions of the study, I wouldn't be complaining one bit. That's how things should the done.

-It is clear from her letter that she didn't even understand the basics of his study, as no one who carefully read it or listened to his testimony would've made the mistake of thinking he was challenging the billions of dollars in benefits that would result from the elimination from bad advice, since he agrees with this point and incorporates it into his analysis. He does challenge the extent of the benefits claimed, but still acknowledges these benefits in his analysis.

-Are you really surprised that the letter led to his resignation? Are you really buying she didn't consider the likelihood that such a letter would force him to resign or, at the very least, cause a lot of friction between him and the organization? These are all things that harm him professionally. Affiliation with the Brookings Institution bolsters his professional credibility.

 

[laughing dog]

The irony of the WSJ and its dupes in their hypocritical smear campaign against Elizabeth Warren is overwhelming. They are not fooling anyone.

 

[Toni]

And my life has not been ruined by any of those violations.

I don't see anything ironical about it. She is being called out for her horrible actions by using her influence as a us senator to try to destroy someone's career over a petty violation all because he provided reserch and testimony that challenged her regulations. Do you not appreciate the power and influence she wields as a us senator and how corrupt it is to try to use that power to purge a critic?

The WSJ is using its power and influence in printing a hysterical attack on Senator Warren in order to "ruin" her over a very insignificant action and how corrupt it is to try and use that power to purge a critic of one the WSJ's favorite industries.

I appreciate the difference between an attempt to ruin someone's career and a lame swipe at a critic. Perhaps the WSJ should learn to appreciate the difference as well.

It's the job of the press to criticize and point out corrupt actions of the powerful. It is very telling that you see no distinction between someone in a position of power and influence trying to harm someone's career for criticizing their policies as equivalent to a journalist reporting and criticizing those actions of that powerful person.

It's the job of all of us to point out hypocrisy. Which is what WSJ is engaging in.

- - - Updated - - -

The irony of the WSJ and its dupes in their hypocritical smear campaign against Elizabeth Warren is overwhelming. They are not fooling anyone.

Reading this thread, it appears they are fooling some people.

 

[Axulus]

Why are so many here obsessed with the WSJ?

Seems like grasping at straws when the only tactic one has left is a good old fashioned ad hom. Also, I find the idea ridiculous that a powerful politician engaging in intimidation with a so-called "investigation" that directly leads to the resignation of someone from their professional position, thus directly harming their professional career and credibility, is in any way comparable to a journalist in an opinion column mocking that politician and pointing out the bad behavior that the politician engaged in.

Additionally, if anyone bothered to continue on the thread, I incorporate multiple sources including my own analysis of her letter itself and comments provided directly by Dr. Litan about the whole affair.

 

[Toni]

It's a bit difficult because I can't copy and paste the text on that .pdf. I'll try to analyze it point by point.

Letter is here for quick reference:

http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2015-9-28_Warren_Brookings_ltr.pdf

-The fact that she contacts the Brookings Institution has no merit in the first place. Nowhere does Dr. Litan say that this research was conducted or funded in any way by the Brookings Institution. He disavows any notion that the research is independent by disclosing his source of funding twice. His mistake was to mention on the written testimony (but not the verbal testimony) that he holds a position at the Brookings Institution, done to bolster his legitimate professional qualifications. A violation of a new rule implemented by the Brookings Institution just a few months prior at an institution he had been affiliated with for 40 years. No one is confused about whether the Brookings Institution funded the study, Ms. Warren most likely realized he violated the new rule and took full advantage of it to harm him personally.

Think of an analogy - it would be like a professor at a university declaring their position as a professor of X at University Y, and then having a letter sent to the university questioning claims that the university's mission is to conduct independent fact based research, simply because that professor also happened to be conducing non-independent research in a consulting capacity unaffiliated with the university.

-Despite there being no merit in contacting the Brookings Institution, the tone of the first paragraph conveys intimidation. She is conducting an investigation into their affairs using the power of her office. She immediately calls into question the independence of the research conducted by the Brookings Institution and essentially says she is investigating their independence claim, that they need to prove themselves to her and her office.

-Her sentence about "because there's a loophole in the law, it is often perfectly legal for those advisers to push that lousy product." This is factually false. If an adviser knowingly recommends an inferior product for their customer in order to benefit themselves, they are in violation of the Advisors Act, passed in 1940.

The SEC has continuously made it clear subsequent to Capital Gains that the Act imposes on investment advisers an affirmative duty to their clients of utmost good faith, full and fair disclosure of all material facts, and an obligation to employ reasonable care to avoid misleading their clients.

http://www.nrs-inc.com/Events-Calendar/Understanding-Fiduciary-Duties-under-the-Advisers-Act1/

-She then portrays Dr. Litan as nothing more than an industry hack because an unnamed "many" have found these conclusions surprising and "wildly" inconsistent with other findings. However, if she had actually bothered to carefully consider the testimony, he points out areas that these other studies failed to address in their cost/benefit analysis. Furthermore, she states that the research demonstrates that investors are losing billions due to bad advice, as if that rebuts his claims. Once again, she didn't even bother to listen to what his claims are. He _explicitly_ acknowledges that the proposed rule will save investors these billions they are losing from bad advice, but then goes on to argue that there are _other costs_ to investors that will result from the proposed rule and that such harm _is in excess_ of these billions in benefits.

-She then presents the same straw-man again, this time by Jane Dokko, another Brookings Institution affiliated individual, about the billions in losses to investors from bad advice. Something, which bears repeating again, was already explicitly acknowledged and accepted by Dr. Litan in his analysis.

-She then accuses him of having a vauge disclosure about his relationship with the Capital Group, when anyone even remotely familiar with these types of disclosures would immediately be able to tell that the Capital Group funded the study and thus the research is not independent, nor was it ever claimed to be so.

-In the next paragraph, during his questioning, he honestly and forthrightly provided additional details on exactly how much he was paid to do the study. And yet Ms. Warren still tries to make it seem like he was trying to hide it all along.

-In the final part, she lists all her demands for a document request, every organizational document she can get her hands on from the Bookings Institution that in any way relates to their rules, conflict of interest policy, communications between Brookings and Capital Group, and Dr. Litan. Essentially the tone and color of a subpoena, to intimate and cause hardship for the Bookings Institution due to its association with Dr. Litan.

After the letter was received, Dr. Litan was pressured to promptly resign.

Do you think it is a good thing that a US Senator takes actions that forces the resignation of someone in a prestigious professional position all because they opposed her policy and she didn't like the fact that industry paid for the study (which was CLEARLY disclosed and elaborated upon further during the question session)?

- - - Updated - - -

The carefully crafted letter had little of substance in the mud-gunning, so it had to smear Litan (and his co-author) with innuendo, lurid speculation, and carefully crafted misrepresentations

The rhetoric is so thick it is difficult to wade through.

Anybody who has ever had any education on scientific research knows the first thing you look at are potential biases.

And if there are potential biases the research is considered less reliable until it is replicated.

Are you trying to claim that Dr. Litan was forced to resign his professional position because she looked into his biases? Biases which he disclosed and willingly acknowledged in his testimony for all the world to see? Really? Are you that incredulous?

I don't read the sinister undertones in the letter that you do. Sorry, I have read it now multiple times and I am just not getting it.

I think you do have a point though about the timing of the letter. It is late in the game, so to speak. There may be something there.

I have not read anywhere where she threatened to ruin anyone, nor did she ask for Brookings to fire anyone.

My reading of the letter isn't that she is going after Litan so much, but Capital Group.

I just don't see what she was trying to accomplish with the letter without the assumption that she was trying to harm his reputation and cause issues for him with the Bookings Institution. I'm interested in hearing your suggestions on this point.

-Was she confused about whether Brookings Institution funded or supported the study? Why? No claims where ever made to suggest such. I'm just not buying she was confused here which is why I believe other motives were at play, especially in light of the additional details he provided about the relationship with Capital Group during the question period after his testimony two months prior to this letter of hers.

-Why was it necessary to request every document related to their rules and conflict of interest policy, and all their communications related to this paper between the org, Dr. Litan, and Capital Group? Wasn't he already very forthcoming about who funded the study and how much he personally received during the question period? What more is there to investigate?

-Intimidation is itself threatening. How do you think an organization you are part of would react if a senator demanded a variety of documents on their rules and conflict of interest and every communication you had with the organization because of some sort of critical position you took against that senator (whether you were biased or not, that seems to me to be completely irrelevant)?

-Industry funding a study like this is pretty typical. How else are they going to get someone to conduct lengthy and time consuming research that may be beneficial their cause? You'll rarely see people do it out of the goodness of their hearts and, when they don't, what are you supposed to do? The research and testimony itself is still in the public interest (when the funding source is properly disclosed, which it was in this case) as a free, open and democratic society should consider all points of view before implementing a new law or regulation. Even more so when that point of view is coming from the stakeholder materially impacted by that law or regulation. They especially have a right for their point of view to be heard in my opinion. No one things their point of view isn't going to be biased. Just because a point of view is biased doesn't mean the claims they make have no legitimacy or credibility.

-The fact that an industry funded this study merits much more detailed scrutiny and analysis of the methods, analysis and conclusions of the study itself. No one is saying Ms. Warren doesn't have a right to determine additional details on his methods, sources, etc. Had she written a letter to Dr. Litan to get clarification on how he conducted his analysis, what additional assumptions were used, and why he used those assumptions, and then used that information gathered to challenge the conclusions of the study, I wouldn't be complaining one bit. That's how things should the done.

-It is clear from her letter that she didn't even understand the basics of his study, as no one who carefully read it or listened to his testimony would've made the mistake of thinking he was challenging the billions of dollars in benefits that would result from the elimination from bad advice, since he agrees with this point and incorporates it into his analysis. He does challenge the extent of the benefits claimed, but still acknowledges these benefits in his analysis.

-Are you really surprised that the letter led to his resignation? Are you really buying she didn't consider the likelihood that such a letter would force him to resign or, at the very least, cause a lot of friction between him and the organization? These are all things that harm him professionally. Affiliation with the Brookings Institution bolsters his professional credibility.

So, you're basically saying that Warren should be a good little girl and keep her mouth shut and not ruffle any feathers? Instead of doing her damn job?

 

[laughing dog]

Why are so many here obsessed with the WSJ?

Seems like grasping at straws when the only tactic one has left is a good old fashioned ad hom.

If anyone bothered to continue on the thread, I incorporate multiple sources including my own analysis of her letter itself and comments provided directly by Dr. Litan about the whole affair.

Your analysis is encompassed by "the dupes". You are engaging in the same petty and silly behavior that you are criticizing Ms Warren over. She over-played her hand. However, Robert Litan did violate his employer's rules with his representation, and he did financially benefit from the study which was paid by a group that favors his results.

I don't think Litan is a academic whore, but he is not some naif to this type of arena. He made a boo-boo and got caught. It was a minor boo boo, and Warren would have been better off ignoring it. But Litan is not ruined and it is fucking ridiculous to persist in such a claim.

 

[Axulus]

It's a bit difficult because I can't copy and paste the text on that .pdf. I'll try to analyze it point by point.

Letter is here for quick reference:

http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2015-9-28_Warren_Brookings_ltr.pdf

-The fact that she contacts the Brookings Institution has no merit in the first place. Nowhere does Dr. Litan say that this research was conducted or funded in any way by the Brookings Institution. He disavows any notion that the research is independent by disclosing his source of funding twice. His mistake was to mention on the written testimony (but not the verbal testimony) that he holds a position at the Brookings Institution, done to bolster his legitimate professional qualifications. A violation of a new rule implemented by the Brookings Institution just a few months prior at an institution he had been affiliated with for 40 years. No one is confused about whether the Brookings Institution funded the study, Ms. Warren most likely realized he violated the new rule and took full advantage of it to harm him personally.

Think of an analogy - it would be like a professor at a university declaring their position as a professor of X at University Y, and then having a letter sent to the university questioning claims that the university's mission is to conduct independent fact based research, simply because that professor also happened to be conducing non-independent research in a consulting capacity unaffiliated with the university.

-Despite there being no merit in contacting the Brookings Institution, the tone of the first paragraph conveys intimidation. She is conducting an investigation into their affairs using the power of her office. She immediately calls into question the independence of the research conducted by the Brookings Institution and essentially says she is investigating their independence claim, that they need to prove themselves to her and her office.

-Her sentence about "because there's a loophole in the law, it is often perfectly legal for those advisers to push that lousy product." This is factually false. If an adviser knowingly recommends an inferior product for their customer in order to benefit themselves, they are in violation of the Advisors Act, passed in 1940.

The SEC has continuously made it clear subsequent to Capital Gains that the Act imposes on investment advisers an affirmative duty to their clients of utmost good faith, full and fair disclosure of all material facts, and an obligation to employ reasonable care to avoid misleading their clients.

http://www.nrs-inc.com/Events-Calendar/Understanding-Fiduciary-Duties-under-the-Advisers-Act1/

-She then portrays Dr. Litan as nothing more than an industry hack because an unnamed "many" have found these conclusions surprising and "wildly" inconsistent with other findings. However, if she had actually bothered to carefully consider the testimony, he points out areas that these other studies failed to address in their cost/benefit analysis. Furthermore, she states that the research demonstrates that investors are losing billions due to bad advice, as if that rebuts his claims. Once again, she didn't even bother to listen to what his claims are. He _explicitly_ acknowledges that the proposed rule will save investors these billions they are losing from bad advice, but then goes on to argue that there are _other costs_ to investors that will result from the proposed rule and that such harm _is in excess_ of these billions in benefits.

-She then presents the same straw-man again, this time by Jane Dokko, another Brookings Institution affiliated individual, about the billions in losses to investors from bad advice. Something, which bears repeating again, was already explicitly acknowledged and accepted by Dr. Litan in his analysis.

-She then accuses him of having a vauge disclosure about his relationship with the Capital Group, when anyone even remotely familiar with these types of disclosures would immediately be able to tell that the Capital Group funded the study and thus the research is not independent, nor was it ever claimed to be so.

-In the next paragraph, during his questioning, he honestly and forthrightly provided additional details on exactly how much he was paid to do the study. And yet Ms. Warren still tries to make it seem like he was trying to hide it all along.

-In the final part, she lists all her demands for a document request, every organizational document she can get her hands on from the Bookings Institution that in any way relates to their rules, conflict of interest policy, communications between Brookings and Capital Group, and Dr. Litan. Essentially the tone and color of a subpoena, to intimate and cause hardship for the Bookings Institution due to its association with Dr. Litan.

After the letter was received, Dr. Litan was pressured to promptly resign.

Do you think it is a good thing that a US Senator takes actions that forces the resignation of someone in a prestigious professional position all because they opposed her policy and she didn't like the fact that industry paid for the study (which was CLEARLY disclosed and elaborated upon further during the question session)?

- - - Updated - - -

The carefully crafted letter had little of substance in the mud-gunning, so it had to smear Litan (and his co-author) with innuendo, lurid speculation, and carefully crafted misrepresentations

The rhetoric is so thick it is difficult to wade through.

Anybody who has ever had any education on scientific research knows the first thing you look at are potential biases.

And if there are potential biases the research is considered less reliable until it is replicated.

Are you trying to claim that Dr. Litan was forced to resign his professional position because she looked into his biases? Biases which he disclosed and willingly acknowledged in his testimony for all the world to see? Really? Are you that incredulous?

I don't read the sinister undertones in the letter that you do. Sorry, I have read it now multiple times and I am just not getting it.

I think you do have a point though about the timing of the letter. It is late in the game, so to speak. There may be something there.

I have not read anywhere where she threatened to ruin anyone, nor did she ask for Brookings to fire anyone.

My reading of the letter isn't that she is going after Litan so much, but Capital Group.

I just don't see what she was trying to accomplish with the letter without the assumption that she was trying to harm his reputation and cause issues for him with the Bookings Institution. I'm interested in hearing your suggestions on this point.

-Was she confused about whether Brookings Institution funded or supported the study? Why? No claims where ever made to suggest such. I'm just not buying she was confused here which is why I believe other motives were at play, especially in light of the additional details he provided about the relationship with Capital Group during the question period after his testimony two months prior to this letter of hers.

-Why was it necessary to request every document related to their rules and conflict of interest policy, and all their communications related to this paper between the org, Dr. Litan, and Capital Group? Wasn't he already very forthcoming about who funded the study and how much he personally received during the question period? What more is there to investigate?

-Intimidation is itself threatening. How do you think an organization you are part of would react if a senator demanded a variety of documents on their rules and conflict of interest and every communication you had with the organization because of some sort of critical position you took against that senator (whether you were biased or not, that seems to me to be completely irrelevant)?

-Industry funding a study like this is pretty typical. How else are they going to get someone to conduct lengthy and time consuming research that may be beneficial their cause? You'll rarely see people do it out of the goodness of their hearts and, when they don't, what are you supposed to do? The research and testimony itself is still in the public interest (when the funding source is properly disclosed, which it was in this case) as a free, open and democratic society should consider all points of view before implementing a new law or regulation. Even more so when that point of view is coming from the stakeholder materially impacted by that law or regulation. They especially have a right for their point of view to be heard in my opinion. No one things their point of view isn't going to be biased. Just because a point of view is biased doesn't mean the claims they make have no legitimacy or credibility.

-The fact that an industry funded this study merits much more detailed scrutiny and analysis of the methods, analysis and conclusions of the study itself. No one is saying Ms. Warren doesn't have a right to determine additional details on his methods, sources, etc. Had she written a letter to Dr. Litan to get clarification on how he conducted his analysis, what additional assumptions were used, and why he used those assumptions, and then used that information gathered to challenge the conclusions of the study, I wouldn't be complaining one bit. That's how things should the done.

-It is clear from her letter that she didn't even understand the basics of his study, as no one who carefully read it or listened to his testimony would've made the mistake of thinking he was challenging the billions of dollars in benefits that would result from the elimination from bad advice, since he agrees with this point and incorporates it into his analysis. He does challenge the extent of the benefits claimed, but still acknowledges these benefits in his analysis.

-Are you really surprised that the letter led to his resignation? Are you really buying she didn't consider the likelihood that such a letter would force him to resign or, at the very least, cause a lot of friction between him and the organization? These are all things that harm him professionally. Affiliation with the Brookings Institution bolsters his professional credibility.

So, you're basically saying that Warren should be a good little girl and keep her mouth shut and not ruffle any feathers? Instead of doing her damn job?

I'll spell it out for you, in big bold this time:

The fact that an industry funded this study merits much more detailed scrutiny and analysis of the methods, analysis and conclusions of the study itself. No one is saying Ms. Warren doesn't have a right to determine additional details on his methods, sources, etc. Had she written a letter to Dr. Litan to get clarification on how he conducted his analysis, what additional assumptions were used, and why he used those assumptions, and then used that information gathered to challenge the conclusions of the study, I wouldn't be complaining one bit. That's how things should the done.

To answer your question, no, a Senator should not use their power to conduct a baseless investigation to harm their critics. That is abuse of power and should be pointed out whenever it occurs, regardless of how many warm fuzzies that senator gives you.

 

[Toni]

Why are so many here obsessed with the WSJ?

Seems like grasping at straws when the only tactic one has left is a good old fashioned ad hom. Also, I find the idea ridiculous that a powerful politician engaging in intimidation with a so-called "investigation" that directly leads to the resignation of someone from their professional position, thus directly harming their professional career and credibility, is in any way comparable to a journalist in an opinion column mocking that politician and pointing out the bad behavior that the politician engaged in.

Additionally, if anyone bothered to continue on the thread, I incorporate multiple sources including my own analysis of her letter itself and comments provided directly by Dr. Litan about the whole affair.

Your own analysis? AND Dr. Litan's?

Wow!

 

[laughing dog]

To answer your question, no, a Senator should not use their power to engage in a baseless investigation to harm their critics.

No one should to do that. Yet here you are quoting the WSJ in their quest to harm a critic of the finance industry without a batting an eyelash. You are not usually this tone deaf.

 

[Axulus]

Why are so many here obsessed with the WSJ?

Seems like grasping at straws when the only tactic one has left is a good old fashioned ad hom. Also, I find the idea ridiculous that a powerful politician engaging in intimidation with a so-called "investigation" that directly leads to the resignation of someone from their professional position, thus directly harming their professional career and credibility, is in any way comparable to a journalist in an opinion column mocking that politician and pointing out the bad behavior that the politician engaged in.

Additionally, if anyone bothered to continue on the thread, I incorporate multiple sources including my own analysis of her letter itself and comments provided directly by Dr. Litan about the whole affair.

Your own analysis? AND Dr. Litan's?

Wow!

More ad homs? Wow! Didn't see that one coming...

 

[untermensche]

The rhetoric is so thick it is difficult to wade through.

Anybody who has ever had any education on scientific research knows the first thing you look at are potential biases.

And if there are potential biases the research is considered less reliable until it is replicated.

Anyone who has such a science education, looks for bias IN THE WORK. If you imply or accuse someone of dishonesty in his/her work, you attack the work, not the source (or the source's funding).

Rather elementary.

You can't see the work. All you have is a final product.

Of course you never conclude ahead of time a bias exist, only a potential bias, which doesn't discredit the work, it only lessens your dependence on it.

 

[Axulus]

To answer your question, no, a Senator should not use their power to engage in a baseless investigation to harm their critics.

No one should to do that. Yet here you are quoting the WSJ in their quest to harm a critic of the finance industry without a batting an eyelash. You are not usually this tone deaf.

It's really interesting, you are so clear on the distinction when the police try to harm the reputation of someone they shot vs. when someone in the press tries to harm the reputation of that police officer. You are somehow able to make the distinction between someone using their power and authority as an agent or representative of the state engaging an in action to advance their own interests and an ordinary citizen engaging in their free speech rights due to the power imbalance and the responsibility that the public has vested in the public official.

Yet when it comes to someone that gives you warm fuzzies, you suddenly go blind to that kind of distinction. Why is that?

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone who has such a science education, looks for bias IN THE WORK. If you imply or accuse someone of dishonesty in his/her work, you attack the work, not the source (or the source's funding).

Rather elementary.

You can't see the work. All you have is a final product.

Of course you never conclude ahead of time a bias exist, only a potential bias, which doesn't discredit the work, it only lessens your dependence on it.

Even if you can conclude a bias exists and the study conducted by the person with the bias can still be valid and have true and useful conclusions. Just saying that the person conducting the work is biased does not discredit the work. What one should do is subject the work to additional scrutiny and see if it still holds up under that microscope of scrutiny. That is how you discredit such work, not by engaging in ad homs.

 

[Toni]

No one should to do that. Yet here you are quoting the WSJ in their quest to harm a critic of the finance industry without a batting an eyelash. You are not usually this tone deaf.

It's really interesting, you are so clear on the distinction when the police try to harm the reputation of someone they shot vs. when someone in the press tries to harm the reputation of that police officer. You are somehow able to make the distinction between someone using their power and authority as an agent or representative of the state engaging an in action to advance their own interests and an ordinary citizen engaging in their free speech rights due to the power imbalance and the authority that the public has vested in the public official.

Yet when it comes to someone that gives you warm fuzzies, you suddenly go blind to that kind of distinction. Why is that?

- - - Updated - - -

Anyone who has such a science education, looks for bias IN THE WORK. If you imply or accuse someone of dishonesty in his/her work, you attack the work, not the source (or the source's funding).

Rather elementary.

You can't see the work. All you have is a final product.

Of course you never conclude ahead of time a bias exist, only a potential bias, which doesn't discredit the work, it only lessens your dependence on it.

A bias can exist and the study conducted by the person with the bias can still be valid and have useful conclusions. Just saying there is a bias doesn't discredit the work to anyone other than simpletons.

Throw in $38K or so and you've definitely got a valid study!

- - - Updated - - -

Your own analysis? AND Dr. Litan's?

Wow!

More ad homs? Wow! Didn't see that one coming...

Wow again. Just wow.

 

[laughing dog]

No one should to do that. Yet here you are quoting the WSJ in their quest to harm a critic of the finance industry without a batting an eyelash. You are not usually this tone deaf.

It's really interesting, you are so clear on the distinction when the police try to harm the reputation of someone they shot vs. when someone in the press tries to harm the reputation of that police officer. You are somehow able to make the distinction between someone using their power and authority as an agent or representative of the state engaging an in action to advance their own interests and an ordinary citizen engaging in their free speech rights due to the power imbalance and the authority that the public has vested in the public official.

Litan was not engaging in free speech rights - he was testifying about the results of a study paid by an interest group. No one has silenced this well-paid high profile academic - he fucking testified in public. And now he has the WSJ using his situation to smear Senator Warren with its hypocritical hyperbolic ravings. And now normally level-headed people are being duped into the crusade. The fact you cannot distinguish between real harm (being shot) with some senator questioning someone's integrity over some small and relatively meaningless study in the grand scheme of things is truly depressing.

Yet when it comes to someone that gives you warm fuzzies, you suddenly go blind to that kind of distinction. Why is that?

Since I have repeatedly posted the Warren did not behave properly, I am beginning to wonder if this hypocritical crusade of yours is blinding your reading comprehension.