See below...
> I quite agree. Responsible 'economics' writing is always free from
'loaded
> words', relying instead on clarity, freedom from ambiguity, and an
entirely
> objective neutrality. People like Chomsky who refuse to swallow the sign
as
> the signified have no business messing in serious matters. His
contributions
> often do no more than confuse people who should otherwise be content to
> embrace the dominant paradigm and get on with their roles.

Is this a bad joke?
Regardless of the "loaded" language that Chomsky, or
anyone else, may or may not use, I can't think of a damned person on this
planet, so full of people starving, choking and dying from  economic chaos,
"who
should otherwise be content to embrace the dominant paradigm and get on
with their roles".
I await, with not much enthusiasm, the names of the
"responsible" economic heroes of this writer whose reliance upon
"...clarity, freedom from ambiguity, and an entirely objective neutrality"
so inspired said writer that (s)he would expect anyone to swallow this
"paradigm".

DDeBar