3 ms·

How sad you also can't explain why the lump of labour fallacy isn't a fallacy. Maybe save the snark until you have at least a high school level understanding o

• marcosdumay 4y ago
  Are you really insisting on somebody explaining how your strawmen isn't alive? Of course it's dead.
  • notahacker 4y ago
    I'm quite insistent that the best way to explain why something that economists believe is a fallacy isn't a fallacy is to explain why it isn't fallacy, yes. Sorry kid, you haven't killed a field of economic study by saying "straw man" and "propaganda". The only thing that's dead was my hope that you had enough understanding of the topic to at least attempt adult discussion. I'll leave you to have the last word. It's obvious this matters to you more than understanding.
    • marcosdumay 4y ago
      > a field of economic study Oh, sorry. You believe the lump of labor fallacy created a field of economic study?! Really?
      • notahacker 4y ago
        Nope. I do recommend reading how the thread started before replying next time. (hint: somebody mentioned the lump of labour fallacy, and somebody else replied by insisting that economics was a strange field full of fallacies that were actually true statements. He didn't offer any arguments for why economists were wrong to think the lump of labour fallacy was a fallacy, but to be fair to him, this might be because he was too bored to participate in debate rather than because he was desperate to continue the argument despite having no clue what he was arguing about...)