The last paragraph makes it clear the real point of the article is: "People in TV and major newspapers agree with me. Only silly internet people say anything different. So shut up."
Understood, but I believe it highlights how you landed at the premise of the article. You make multiple disparaging remarks about youtube. I dare infer you don't object to commentary on MSNBC that agrees with your final paragraph. It's just an endorsement of appeal to authority.
First, the premise of the article is that people bring false expertise and unfounded certainty to the topic at hand. That has pretty much nothing to do with the veracity of various youtube videos, or MSNBC.
Second, the presumption that I actually hold any of the beliefs in the final paragraph is completely misfounded and can only be rightly attributed to someone who didn't really read what I was trying to say and instead decided to pigeonhole my argument. I don't know what to think. I cannot make a compelling and satisfactory argument (to my standards) for or against a gold standard and I sure as hell don't trust "dudes on the internet" to give me a reasonable argument, either. The topic is sufficiently complex that any charlatan can waive his hand, throw up some smoke and mirrors, and put on a convincing case for just about anything. That is why I don't trust so-called "expose" youtube videos, either. Or, for that matter, MSNBC, since no one who goes on "pop" news is actually interested in educated the public on the finer points of macroeconomics but instead massaging it for their own political purposes.
While none of the economic arguers on the web are convincing enough of the rightness of their views to take without multiple grains of salt, some of them are quite capable of convincing me of the incompetence of many of their opponents' arguments.
