Hey so, your argument rests on the assumption that the ultra-micro applies to the macro, which you've just taken as a given, and which is likely false. Even if

Hey so, your argument rests on the assumption that the ultra-micro applies to the macro, which you've just taken as a given, and which is likely false. Even if it were given, there are further problems in there. So that's not great, but on top of that, you seem to be solely using your bad argument to inject a strong opinion about a basically unrelated matter. The parent asked about methods of measuring how different analyses of macroeconimics lean toward working off of one theory or another, and whether there are hybrids, and it appears you are just advocating that one theory is clearly right and that you know how to fix the economy. I even agree roughly with what you're advocating, but please, we should try not to do that. Your argument is bad, so you're kind of auto-wrong here, but much worse: you are not even wrong at the person you appear to be talking to. You're just tossing wrong into the wind here, and it makes your (our) position look bad, and cheapens the discussion, which has now become just pitched disagreements. I say this overtly hostile thing not to harm you 'petilon, because I bet you're great, and I think we're on the same team, but both because we should do the best we can to argue well, and this is the real thing I care about: we should make sure that when talking we aren't just spouting partisan parrotship, but are seriously reading and responding to what others have actually said. The parent asked a pretty cool question -- I hope it doesn't get lost forever under the weight of the us vs. them debate that is now dominating the thread after your comment unfortunately hijacked it.