Probably because there's not really much substance to address. Most commentary on "economics" is barely-disguised political advocacy, starting with a conclusion and then working backwards to come up with arguments, and this article is even more egregious than most. Lots of argument-by-assertion and emotionally-loaded phrasing, and a general attitude of having all the answers.<p>I expect it wouldn't be too hard to find a similar article from an "opposing position" with all the same muddled thinking and question begging, but what would that really accomplish? This sort of nonsense goes firmly in the "not even wrong" bin.<p>Stuff like this is more about social status-seeking and in-group identity than about the ostensible topic.