After a PM conversation with Steve, and pending reviewing Zvi’s post more carefully, I’ll note:
I agree that Zvi probably meant something pro-market. (I mostly disagree that EA should be much more pro-market than it already is, but that’s not the main point here.)
Insofar as Zvi is attempting to make the reader believe without justification that EA is insufficiently pro-market, that’s intellectually lazy, but he’s probably just mentioning disagreements to set up the rest of his post rather than to convince, in which case it’s not intellectually lazy. So I retract “intellectually lazy.” (But it is frustrating to a reader who wants to know what Zvi really thinks and why, especially since this isn’t the first time Zvi has criticized EA obliquely.)
After a PM conversation with Steve, and pending reviewing Zvi’s post more carefully, I’ll note:
I agree that Zvi probably meant something pro-market. (I mostly disagree that EA should be much more pro-market than it already is, but that’s not the main point here.)
Insofar as Zvi is attempting to make the reader believe without justification that EA is insufficiently pro-market, that’s intellectually lazy, but he’s probably just mentioning disagreements to set up the rest of his post rather than to convince, in which case it’s not intellectually lazy. So I retract “intellectually lazy.” (But it is frustrating to a reader who wants to know what Zvi really thinks and why, especially since this isn’t the first time Zvi has criticized EA obliquely.)