I don't have the energy for a lengthy reply but, the short version is that for someone as economically knowledgeable as him to present his case in such a way is

I don't have the energy for a lengthy reply but, the short version is that for someone as economically knowledgeable as him to present his case in such a way is dishonest, when every one of his arguments/supporting-facts has numerous embedded suppositions or real counter arguments. I'll give one example, look at Krugman's chart on tax rates and growth, seems compelling! Not so much, when you factor in tax avoidance/evasion and realize that net tax paid has remained relatively constant [1] - he knows that, and purposely ignores it. [1] https://www.mercatus.org/publication/tax-rates-vs-tax-revenues https://www.mercatus.org/publication/tax-rates-vs-tax-revenu...