| >That is one hell of a presumption. Did I offend you? I'm not offended. You've stated how surprised you are about several thing that someone having studied such things would have seen. I didn't mean to offend - but to point out that if you have not studied them, it's not unreasonable to assume those who have worked on them for a lifetime have some knowledge about them you may not. Did you study them? >This is a complete non-sequitor. It's physics envy and posturing nonsense. No, it's putting some context. If you've studied some complex field in depth, you know how detailed and useful the knowledge is, and that it's generally opaque to those who have not put the time in. >The successes of physics and medicine have no bearing on whether mainstream economics is a complete crock. Yes, they do, since all rely on the same processes to weed out error over time. >In the soft sciences like economics, the expert doesn't necessarily bring more to the table than the reasonably well-read layman. Wow. Ok, now I am sure you have not studied them at any academic or professional level, and I see why you're so mad and believe such fringe things about money. Having met enough people like you that are sure you or people like you bring as much to an econ discussion as experts despite what you've written here is the epitome of Dunning Krueger. And that I did mean directly. I never understand why people that know a lot about some area of knowledge assume they are expert level proficient in others without putting equivalent time in. Have a nice day. |