In response to this post about the exchange in which Chief Justice John "l'etat la loi, c'est moi" Roberts asked whether it wasn't "extraordinarily paternalistic" to think "that shareholders are too stupid to keep track of what their corporations are doing," and therefore the market would correct any excessive corporate involvement in political affairs, one reader asks:

"Didn't we just learn that most investors are 'too stupid' to know about their investments BECAUSE there were many and completely hidden risk- taking ventures going on??????  And weren't some people also duped into ridiculous mortgage arrangements when there was no follow up to their ridiculous applications that showed no or insufficient income????"

Another reader writes:

"Regarding your comments on John Roberts's view resembling 'the idiot-savant faith in flawless markets that we all recall from Introductory Ec class.' I am a 38-year-old who is now in law school after pursuing a career in the arts, and I find that the Roberts/Econ view is (shockingly, to me) presented as dogma by law professors and barely questioned by law students. In my first year, a torts professor explained to our class how you could price the value of a lost child by seeing how much the parents spent on safety equipment and discounting by the percentage the equipment would save the child's life, with no ancillary discussion of how parents are pressured by marketers, wealthy parents are more able to buy silly pseudo-safety devices, or the conspicuous consumption issue. Seeing how lawyers are trained to look at the world, I am not in any way surprised at Roberts's view. He is a very smart man who has been institutionally taught that the world of theoretical economics ("assume a can opener") is a good model for the real world. It is sobering to see, but not surprising."

These offered for the record.