> It's literally the point of the organization that did the survey What is “the point” of the organization that did the survey? > these economists are members

> It's literally the point of the organization that did the survey What is “the point” of the organization that did the survey? > these economists are members of this organization. In the sense that they are surveyed by this organization? Do you mean that anyone who is surveyed by organization X belongs to X? > You’re the one being intentionally vague with "what you think a policy 'is about' and its actual consequences are very different things." I wasn’t being vague, much less intentionally. I was merely pointing out that what you (or I) think a policy “is about” is very different from its real-world consequences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences > I'm trying to get you to be specific concerning the technical details of your argument What “argument” of mine are you referring to? And why do you hold me to such high standards of “technical details”, which you don’t seem to apply to yourself? That’s just plain hypocrisy. > but you seem to be fighting that pretty hard. I honestly have no idea where you’re trying to go with this.