I understand that one can argue semantically whether advisors are "setting policy", but that's not a productive thread to follow, because it isn't relevant to m

I understand that one can argue semantically whether advisors are "setting policy", but that's not a productive thread to follow, because it isn't relevant to my point. We are all aware that macroeconomists aren't voting "aye" and "nay" in the capitol, and it's a dishonest representation of my comment to ever pretend that I was suggesting that. Anyone who is interested in a good-faith discussion around here is perfectly capable of understanding my point and responding with a substantive comment, just like those who want to argue for argument's sake are able to intentionally misunderstand. Have a good day.