Paragraph 1: argument from authority and questioning my competency.

• no, asking if you have a basic knowledge of what you are arguing and what we can actually discuss. Appears not.

Paragraph 2: conceding part of the argument to reframe it

• finding common ground to discuss a way forward and being aware of limitations.

Paragraph 3: an appeal to emotion and rewriting history

• logical explanation of what was done and why, using known theory. See point 1

Paragraph 4: attempt to distract with jargon

• this is first three weeks of first year economics. See point 1.

Yeah I am not buying what you are selling. Economists consistently support the views of the people who are paying them, consistently make predictions that do not happen, and consistently ignore real world data that goes against what they laughably call theories.

• you have literally seen the change in inflation rates being implemented in order to starve of recession and keep people employed. First 3 weeks of economics.

All attempts to reframe, reorient, distract, gatekeep, and every sorta rhetoric tricks will not remove the facts that I have stated. But hey go ahead and prove me wrong, go find me someone employed at Goldman Sachs with an econ degree who for years has stated that the bailouts were a bad idea. Go ahead and find me a government economist who supports student loan amnesty. I will lend you my lantern to find the one honest economists.

• you’ve discussed multiple inconsistencies and distractions in mine, yet through out your have thrown out personal beliefs and unrealistic possibilities with no evidence behind you.

We made god in our image, the economist god is homo economis. A being whose integrity is bought for pennies. That says all you really need to know.

• see point above. For the record, im not a paid economists so throw what I’m paid to do out of the equation.