The thing is I liked racahel when she was guests on different shows ,then she got under OL’s wing and i couldn’t stand her. BUT now she seems to slowly becoming more of the person I respected in the beginning,EXCEPT for trashing Hillary . Let’s just focus like they did in the primary and the Ge on Obama ,after all everyone has to do what he says ,remember that tight ship. And he’s not so much for gays is he?

The points of contention are generally not whether or not a model or an approach works but whether or not it is the best approach to pursue. (And that is where politics enters the picture).

So yes, actually, different schools of economic thought are working “hand in hand” in that they generally do agree in the legitimacy of each-others work, though disputes arise on the subject of implementation.

Truly, though, I’m not even sure what you’re arguing for in your post. You’re clearly not an economist, don’t seem to have a central point and seem to be referring to a “vast amount of evidence” for a view that you aren’t really even articulating. What point are you trying to convey?

You mention this supposed “research” that “your discipline” has put together over the past few hundred years. I didn’t realise that the Keynesians and Friedman-ites were working hand in hand. Like most disciplines there are divisions between schools who think that they have a correct answer and spend time trying to prove it empirically. Unfortunately, what we’ve witnessed over the past 30 years is a repudiation of the Chicago School and their neo-liberal tactics. You cannot divorce economics from the political realities that we have seen. People do not want their resources to be sold whole-sale to private interests. You ignore the vast amounts of evidence that show that this has happened and instead spout intellectual pseudo-babble about how you are right because you are an economist. Get your head out of the sand.

To add fuel to the fire, they’re also claiming that their “theory” that they threw together in a weekend without any research or real-world data analysis is as legitimate, if not more so, than what my discipline has spent the last couple hundred years putting together.

Just the same, as an economist, I cannot stand non-economists like Klein conflating their own political views with economic theory to spew out something that is, in truth, fundamentally wrong.

But, she can write persuasively enough that non-economists can be led to believe that she is correct, even if her writing ultimately has little academic merit. And further, to argue that her ideas are as legitimate as those of people who have spent their lives studying the field just irritates me to no end since she has no formal background the subject.

Am I biased against her? Certainly. But I’m biased against anyone who claims to be an intellectual, is a persuasive writer, but does not have any academic rigor to speak of.

She’s fairly articulate, but she likes to rant about subjects that she has no real background or experience with and tends to accept as fact ideas that are not supported by evidence. She is little more than a well-spoken conspiracy theorist who uses every opportunity she gets to try to educate others on her bizarre views of reality.