Yes, I understand why you want to ignore the fact that economists disagree on this topic. We shall have to disagree as well. And it is not necessary to address me as God.
right. read the galbraith wikipedia page. other economists do not take him seriously. even left wing paul krugman says he was an economist for politicians, not for actual policy. if you dont accept the fundamental concepts of economics, i cannot help you.
Its like arguing with Red about Global warming. His overwhelming response to so call Nay-Sayers is the "majority" of scientist agreeing with him. Though, in this case, he points to the "minority" b/c it supports his cause.
Both of you are just repeating yourselves over and over and offering nothing new. This is over. I'll see you on the global warming thread if you think you've got anything. I ain't holding my breath.
This isn't a science issue, economics is not science. As far as the academic experts on economics, I have just noted that the most famous economist of the 20th century and a lot of other Keynesian economists disagree.
i dont agree that Galbraith is the most famous, and i would submit that fame is reverse correlated with accuracy in the field of economics. i know you judge everything on public opinion, so the most famous X is the best X, but that isnt the case. again, the fact is that modern economists overwhelmingly agree with me. the good news is that you only slightly believe what you saying and are for the most part playing devils advocate. also economics is clearly and exactly a science. if you oppose the consensus that is fine, i do that sometimes too. but dont deny you oppose the actual economists. politicians will latch on the scientific theory that allows them the most control because they want to be seen as the guy that fixes, the guy proactively doing stuff, getting votes and doing stuff. thats why if congress does nothing and is deadlocked, it is considered a failure. it isnt a failure, it is a grand success. so in environmental science, politicians and the public will favor the guy who calls for action. same thing with economics. you dont get votes by assuming the public is sophisiticated anough to know that these things should be left alone. the public doesnt understand anything, they are totally unsophisticated, like you. they think complex systems are simple and can be fixed with cap and trade or fixed prices. so the scientists with proposed solutions, people listen to him. the humble and honest scientists are ignored.
He is undeniably well-known, respected and influential in economics and among only three that have any claim at all to most prominent. I submit that none agree with you and that you agree with many. Inherent in your statement is the fact that economists disagree on the subject. You don't get to proclaim my thoughts. I have spoken plainly. No one speaks for me but me. Horseshit. Pick a University. Is economics found in the College of Science? No. It is found in the College of Business. Sometimes in the College of Humanities. Economics is not science, it is social studies. I have taught you many times, Grasshoppa . . . just because you cannot understand a thing does not mean that nobody can. You constantly demonstrate that you don't know dick about science.
i majored in political science, does that count as a science? or is the name a lie? the soft sciences are stil sciences, dude. you said he was the most prominent? now he is top 3. which is it? i was doing you a favor by assuming you dont believe what you are saying. again, if you cant be bothered to learn anything, not my problem.
That explains a lot . . . Of course the name is a lie! "Social Sciences" is an inherent contradiction. Hell, the girls at the Beauty "College" learn the science of "Cosmetology"! Does that count as a science? The "hard sciences" are amused and somewhat embarrassed for you. Blah, blah, nothing new. Certainly not an argument to be considered.
