If you’re not interested, maybe you could answer this question though: How would a stable, zero growth population, do in the market? Would growth still be possible? Seriously, I don’t know the answer. And if the answer should be no, wouldn’t it logically suggest a huge problem for any growth based economical system? Yet again refering to Hardin.

Gruszynski falsely accuses Roberts of “Appeal to Authority,” when in reality it is Gruzsynski him/herself who commits that particular fallacy.

It is a false accusation; consider this description of the Appeal to Authority fallacy: “To quote a respected authority on an issue in his own field is a legitimate kind of argument, for in many situations we are forced to rely on the opinions of authorities. This kind of argument becomes a fallacy, however, when we cite an authority on an issue unrelated to his field of competence.” (taken from the classic text Applied Logic by Little, Wilson, and Moore, used in universities across the country for years).

Roberts is talking about the statements of a trained economist who happens to be the Chair at a university known for economics about /economic subjects/ — that’s perfectly legitimate argument. (And before Gruszynski launches into another tantrum-like response, notice I and the authors said “argument,” implying something that a person could still disagree with, but only with proper facts, not other logical fallacies like Gruszynski’s response is strewn with — see below)

But twice in Gruszynski’s response, s/he asks us to take his/her word as an engineer on matters unrelated to engineering — both medicine and economics. (And before Gruszynski launches into something about MBA work being kinda-sorta related to economics and maybe even requiring an econ class or a few, that’s still trying to quote a specialty as expert outside its specialty — essentially saying “STFU because I have an MBA, bub”)

As for the rest of what Gruszynski writes, s/he commits each of the following fallacies: poisoning the well, oversimplification, special pleading, misuse of analogy, attitude fitting, and argumentum ad populum — not to mention simply unfounded statements.

The poor quality of argument found in Gruszynski’s post is the very reason why I hardly ever scroll down to the comments below legitimate articles, in newspapers or whatever. If s/he wants to bring his/her argument up to the level of reasonable adults, I’m all for it — until then, I’ll stick to teaching teenagers how to blog more responsibly than Gruszynski.

Would I challenge a doctor as you describe? Hell yes! Anyone who doesn\’t do so isn\’t actually managing their own health at all.

Do doctors have experience and often special pockets of knowledge? If they \"practice\" sure, but even in most cases that \"edge\" is likely not even in a very scientifically sound form.

Do doctors use double-blind methods with proper controls to test medication efficacy with individual patients (every patient has a idiosyncratic response to medications – you do know that, yes?) or do they use the diagnostic flyer that the pharma rep dropped off last week that likely has been crafted to promote pharma products being sold?

What you really are looking for is the power to make people \"STFU\" whenever you want simply because you have PhD or are a professor at a \"brand\" name university. It has nothing to do with intellectual honesty, truth or best interests of anyone but yourself.

This isn\’t a case of \"economists being so misunderstood\". When the arguments are of this type, we understand economists _all too well_ and that really ticks you off – you\’ve been found out.

Those of us, myself an engineer and MBA, who invade \"your\" bailiwick routinely operate at a much more scientific, empirical and internally consistent level of interaction with our own professional knowledge and lore than is evident with economists generally. When we hear, see and read sloppy thinking and bad model use or making, we speak up, because we all have to live with the consequences of fools in business and government listening to fools in academia.

1. Wealth
2. Currency/Money

Once wealth is defined, currency will become unit of measure of wealth. The currency becomes valid medium of exchange and store of value only when wealth is defined and the issuer “promises to deliver x unit of wealth” if not every currency including gold currency is ponzi scheme – means when the system crashes people holding the currency will end up losers and history shows that ponzi schemes always collapse and economists call it business cycle. In fact using gold as currency is the longest running ponzi scheme in the world.

More precisely “without defining wealth absolutely” economics is like mathematics without concept of zero and mathematics existed for 1000′s of years without concept of zero!

Today’s economics predicting human behavior = astrology predicting human behavior. Try asking Ben Bernanake what will be the exchange rate of US$ and 1 barrel of oil next week……