So I take it you work for a think tank of sorts, yes?
Also, if you know so much about "economical facts" and are so versed into the material, how come you don't even suggest that these "facts", contrary to physical facts, are constructions, interpretations. In other words, any good economist (and I do know one or two, even though it's not my field; having said that, knowing one or two person doesn't amount to anything, I'll give you that much!) will tell you, in all humility, that they work with hypotheses and interpretations about the data they collect. Some have an ideological bend, some don't. But all will agree: there is no "hard" fact about an economical phenomenon. Only data that awaits interpretation.
If you agree to that, and I believe you will, you must then also agree that competing interpretations can exist. Of course, the game goes to the interpret who can best explain the most extensive sum of data. And maybe you win that game here since you seem to have knowledge that others lack; this is not, nor I have I ever said it was, an academic thread!
Having said that, it is quite noticeable in all of your inputs on these threads that you have a certain ideological leaning. Some don't share your leanings. And while those who are here fail to convince you that they are worthy of your dialogue (which I still believe, contrary to you, is a politeness due to any other human being), you will likely grant me that some others "out there" do have that knowledge AND a competing ideology. If you do grant me so much, and I don't see how you couldn't (and if you don't, then you won't here from me again since I believe that I've only made "commonsensical" points), then how can you claim to "hit the others with the truth" as though you were pointing to some physical object?
There are competing interpretations, and one sees better when there is more than one light.
Live games always start at their scheduled start time, right?
)
)
)
)
)
