A website called Benzinga wrote an article titled "The Everyone Is Wrong And Should Admit It Issue". The author, Gary Brode, said that many people are making mistakes and not admitting them. Some of these people are those who don't think Bitcoin is good, some people at the Federal Reserve who want to lower interest rates, politicians in Washington DC and Beijing, and experts who study how people buy things. The author thinks that they should be more honest about their mistakes or feel bad about them. Read from source...

- The author starts with a negative tone, implying that he is superior to the people he is criticizing. This creates a bias and makes the reader question his credibility. A more balanced approach would be to acknowledge different perspectives and provide evidence for his own claims.
- He uses the term "smart people doing smart things" without defining what constitutes as being smart or doing smart things. This is vague and subjective, and it sets up a strawman argument that he can easily attack. A better way to write this would be to specify the criteria for being smart and doing smart things in each context.
- He accuses Bitcoin bears of not applying a consistent lens for their thesis when it's not working, but he does not provide any examples or evidence of this. He also does not acknowledge that there may be different reasons for people to be bearish on Bitcoin, such as environmental concerns, regulatory risks, or market volatility. A more constructive approach would be to compare and contrast the arguments of both sides and identify where they agree or disagree.
- He claims that Fed doves are insisting that a pivot to lower rates is just around the corner, but he does not cite any sources or data to support this claim. He also does not consider the possibility that the Fed may be responding to changing economic conditions or market signals that indicate a need for more stimulus. A more objective way to write this would be to present both sides of the debate and explain why each side is correct or incorrect based on facts and logic.
- He criticizes politicians in Washington DC and Beijing for thinking they're doing a great job creating economic growth, but he does not provide any data or evidence to back up this claim. He also does not address the challenges that these governments face in terms of fiscal policy, social welfare, and international relations. A more nuanced approach would be to evaluate the different policies and their impacts on growth, inflation, inequality, and stability.
- He blames economists for misinterpreting the American consumer, but he does not specify what aspects of the consumer are being misinterpreted or how they are being misinterpreted. He also does not acknowledge that there may be multiple factors influencing consumer behavior, such as income, preferences, expectations, and social norms. A more balanced way to write this would be to identify the sources of confusion or disagreement among economists and explain why some views are more valid than others based on empirical evidence and theoretical frameworks.
- He ends with a vague statement that people should feel badly about being wrong or at least be honest, but he does not provide any suggestions for how they can improve their decision making or admit their mistakes. He also does not acknowledge that being wrong