Replies

If you laid all of the economists in the world end to end, you'd have a bunch of really bored hookers.

So, Dr. Urethra thinks that a Ph.D. is a **necessary** qualification for anyone to comment on economics, eh? How then does he explain away all the Ph.D.s who have, presumably by dint of their hallowed expertise, managed to advocate the policies that have wrecked a once-dynamic economy?

Keep your degrees, boyo; give me someone who can add and reason logically, ANYtime.

"Keep your degrees, boyo; give me someone who can add and reason logically, ANYtime."

Apparently, you are not among those people that can think logically: "So, Dr. Urethra thinks that a Ph.D. is a **necessary** qualification for anyone to comment on economics, eh? How then does he explain away all the Ph.D.s who have, presumably by dint of their hallowed expertise, managed to advocate the policies that have wrecked a once-dynamic economy?"

The explanation is simple: a Ph.D. is necessary but not sufficient. That's all. It's a logical mistake to confuse necessity of a condition with sufficiency.

Partly as a consequence, tou also commit another logical error by offering argumentum ad stramineus homo (arguing against a straw man). The author never said that Ph.D. is sufficient, only that it is necessary. You are thus arguing against something he dir NOT say.

So, whom are you addressing as boyo, kiddo? People that live in glass houses should not throw stones.