Nate Silver confuses cause and effect, ends up defending corruption
I'm not discounting her complaints, but the following is not a confusion of cause and effect:<p>"Silver confuses cause and effect. We didn’t have a financial crisis because of a bad model or a few bad models. We had bad models because of a corrupt and criminally fraudulent financial system."<p>A= Financial Crisis
B= Bad Models
C= Fraudulent System.<p>Nate said "A<-B"
Author says "A<-B<-C"<p>That is not a mix up of cause and effect.<p>Author's main complaint seems to be that Nate assumes bad models are an accident, and Author claims they were intentional.<p>Again, not a mixup of cause and effect.  At worst it's a naive interpretation of the correct cause.