I'm gonna guess this is one of those instances where you don't realize how antagonistic you're being. You started this conversation by positing a position I don't hold, and then asking me to defend that position. I clarified my opinion. Now you are assaulting the validity of that opinion by questioning my education. So I'll turn it around: why am I not allowed to have an opinion about this? Why are my arguments not sufficiently rigorous to stand on their own merits? If someone can make a valid mathematical proof, does their background matter? After all, it didn't matter for Ramanujan. I'm not hypothesizing new forms of economics here: I'm arguing that the science of economics, much as I personally criticize it, is not worthy of the disdain being heaped upon it by the author of this article. And frankly, I'm at a loss as to why I'm under attack for doing that.
You're confusing my sincere curiosity for antagonism. You're a highly-educated person whose knowledge lies beyond what the diploma might suggest. I'd like to know how you got there. Please, don't suggest that I'm doing something out of ill intent if I ask a question - especially of you, since you know damn well what I think about you. I'm already barely talking around here to not upset people.
This is important: people act on their perception of what you say, not on what you intend to say. In this instance, I'm informing you that my perception of what you say mismatches with what (I suspected) you intended to say. And again, in this instance I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt... but it's important that you hear me when I tell you that you're coming across more antagonistic than you intend. We've talked about this. It's not a problem that's limited to me. There are ways to ask these questions that are less likely to raise hackles and I'm simply attempting to inform you that your goals would be best served by using more neutral language. _____________THAT OUT OF THE WAY____________________ One of the tropes of the 2008 recession was "no one saw this coming." Having followed real estate blogs since 2006 which, to a man, were predicting the impending implosion of the real estate market, I knew this to be untrue. One of the other tropes of the 2008 recession was "no one can really explain how this happened." With one trope being handily disproven, I suspected this was also untrue. Thus began a self-guided tour of popular financial literature which led to a layman's education in economics. One of the interesting things about economics is that because it's basically "math for business majors" it's a lot more accessible than you'd think. Not only that but because many of the more recent theories in economics are contentious, the accepted stuff tends to be simple and accessible. I have 49 books in my Audible library dealing with economics, socioeconomics, economic history, management or business. I've read 46 of them. This does not a degree make but I feel it gives me a basis to have an opinion.
...you have got to be shitting me. I'm breaking my neck trying to just break onto the level y'all naturally reside in - just trying to be a tad more normal - and you're giving me shit because you jimmies got rustled over getting asked a fucking question about your extensive education? "More neutral language". Lemme break it down for you. "You lay out quite a lot of experience". Premise. Expression of admiration for knowledge. "Did you read about all of this?". Question. "I seem to remember your official education being something in design and/or construction and/or engineering". Reason for questioning. "More neutral language" my ass. Turn this more neutral - you'll end up with binary. Have to tiptoe around your landmine already just to get a fucking answer out of you - and that still ain't good enough. Fuck this shit. Can't catch a break worth a dime for being myself.