I’ll challenge your statement. According to whom and what data do you have to back it up? Bold statements require bold evidence. 🐶🐾🫡
Discussion
“According to whom”: Why do I need somebody else’s validation to back my opinion up? But nevertheless #[4] will be a good starting point.
“according to what data?”: How many countries that ran on Keynesian economics have so far hyperinflated?
How would you rate the quality of your phone that needs changing every year? Do you know that the first lightbulbs ever created ran for decades? And the lights these days don’t last 5 years so you spend more?
Also macroeconomics doesn’t run experiments in isolation, which means the “data” is not so easily derivable, which means I can even turn this back on you, what data do you have to backup your endorsement of macroeconomics? Bold claims do require bold evidence.
Backup your endorsement of institutional macroeconomics*
Ok, so it’s just your opinion then. That clears it. I am not endorsing anything, I was just replying to your statement (which happened to be an option). Since you clarified that it is an option, I have no further questions! 🐶🐾🫡
That’s all that the field is, options! It’s not a hard science where we run equations and have results (however much the government wants you think it is). The reason I call it a scam is because it’s taught with certainty, when it definitely isn’t.