1) Yes, you are arrogant and ignorant. Both. Subject matter experts (on any subject) don't need a resume to tell the difference between an expert who doesn't fully agree with them, and a non-expert who mistakes themselves for an expert.
2) If you want to complain about people being mean to them, you shouldn't return fire with the same complaints. That just makes you a hypocrite as well.
3) I did not complain about the quality of the forum. I complained that there is no point sharing it with an ignorant, arrogant fool like you.
4) It is not an "ad hominem" attack when I am mean to you. "ad hominem" attacks are when you say "2+2 does not equal 4 because bokonist is arrogant." I never did any such thing.
5) Yes, I'm frustrated that people like you mistake themselves for economists... and even when challenged are too arrogant to realize how little you know.
6) If you check my albeit brief posting history, you'll find precisely zero other examples of such language. Because to date you're the only idiot who has shown up and made a blanket statement that "redditors are right" about economics... then followed it with nonsensical rants about how the federal reserve is responsible for all systemic risk, and how they failed at a regulatory job that was not assigned to them, and a few other utterly non-sequitorial arguments that had no basis, at all, in fact or history.
> I've read dozens of books on finance and economics, from the original classics to more modern research.
6) I greatly doubt "dozens of books", but I wouldn't be surprised if you've read a couple books and some articles that generally all agree with your preconceived ideas and your austrian leanings.
After all, you're clearly a person who think that he can point to the sky and understand economics, which is typical for armchair austrians... whereas actual economists and intelligent people generally prefer econometric data.
> I do not disagree with Keynesians
7) There is no such thing as a Keynesian. You might as well describe a physicist as a Newtonist. Some of his theories were completely incorrect. Some were somewhat correct. Most all of them have been quantified to approximate levels at this point.
> I would be happy to debate or back up either of the two claims I made
8) I'd remind you that you also claimed that:
- The federal reserve failed to be an effective arbiter of systemic risk. (something which was not even remotely in its mission statement.)
- The federal reserve failed to be an effective lead regulator of financial institutions. (something which was, again, not it's job.)
- It's a bad thing that the Federal Reserve acts as a "lender of last resort". (a truly odd implication there, as central banks across the globe serve that function.)
- That mainstream economists weren't aware of the Greenspan Put. (Despite the fact that there have been numerous articles over the years quantifying the greenspan put's effect on equity markets.)
As for your other claims.....
- The mainstream economists led the economy off a cliff.
That's just nonsense. Most economists have nothing to do with the economy. Flat nothing. You might as well blame mainstream physicists for nuclear war. It's true at that level, but not at any useful level.
It's purely ignorant nonsense to make that sort of sweeping claim... and it's amazingly arrogant of you to stand by such obvious and pure nonsense.
- The CPI is not a good measure of inflation.
I'm going to let you in on a secret: it's not the only measure of inflation that has been used, and the methodology is published specifically so that you can examine it.
Non-hedonically adjusted metrics have been studied at length and are generally be be more flawed than the hedonically adjusted metrics. This doesn't mean that CPI is perfect, simply that it is a consistent, well-known metric with well-defined mechanisms for it's adjustments.
That said, it's ludicrously arrogant and nonsensical to simply claim it's pure fabrications, when anybody with anything resembling a knowledge of the mechanisms would know that a great deal of effort goes into figuring out what methods of comparison are useful and accurate, and which are flawed.
> I too find good economic debate very hard to find on the web.
This is hilarious coming from you, given that my dog has a more thorough understanding of economics than you. This meaning that his knowledge is zero, whereas yours is negative.
Good day, sir. While you have convinced yourself that you are an economist, you are not one. To you, economics is a religion, and as such there is no point in arguing with you... you point at the sky, not at the ground. In short, there is literally no possible way to have a reasoned discussion with you.
And with that, I'm truly gone.
I truly and honestly hope that at some point in time you'll pull your head out of your ass for long enough to realize the difference in the level of effort required to become a true expert in a field, and the level of effort required to simply become dangerous.