I noticed that too. Kinda shoots holes in the article's credibility, no? The author isn't necessarily a staff writer, more likely a freelancer with a weak grasp of economics and a star-struck, "gee-whiz" view of the whole thing. The author probably writes economic plans for U.S. presidential candidates, by the sound of the grasp of economics exhibited here.:)
A retraction is only issued when the reporter makes factual errors, e.g., reporting that "the United States is a kingdom comprised of 43 provinces, the largest of which is Guangdong Province." A retraction would be apropos in this instance.
Because the story is only relaying what this anonymous Irishman is claiming, a retraction of the claims -- however outrageous -- has no bearing here. An example of such a retraction-proof, erroneous statement would be, "President Bush has stated that he can increase the defence budget, cut taxes for the rich, and wind up with a surplus." Clearly wrong, in violation of simple arithmetic, and yet, no retraction is necessary.
So you're right. You won't be sending out the T-shirt! Thanks for tempting us, though.
Slashdot Mirror
I noticed that too. Kinda shoots holes in the article's credibility, no? The author isn't necessarily a staff writer, more likely a freelancer with a weak grasp of economics and a star-struck, "gee-whiz" view of the whole thing. The author probably writes economic plans for U.S. presidential candidates, by the sound of the grasp of economics exhibited here. :)
A retraction is only issued when the reporter makes factual errors, e.g., reporting that "the United States is a kingdom comprised of 43 provinces, the largest of which is Guangdong Province." A retraction would be apropos in this instance.
Because the story is only relaying what this anonymous Irishman is claiming, a retraction of the claims -- however outrageous -- has no bearing here. An example of such a retraction-proof, erroneous statement would be, "President Bush has stated that he can increase the defence budget, cut taxes for the rich, and wind up with a surplus." Clearly wrong, in violation of simple arithmetic, and yet, no retraction is necessary.
So you're right. You won't be sending out the T-shirt! Thanks for tempting us, though.