4 ms·

Ok the entire top of the field then. I’d love to see the evidence that the top of the field of economists are working to make rich people richer. The original c

Ok the entire top of the field then. I’d love to see the evidence that the top of the field of economists are working to make rich people richer. The original comment cited trickle down economics (which really means supply-side economics), which is policy oriented (and thus most impactful) versus being an expert for a lawsuit here or there. Google continuing to exist or blowing up won’t fundamentally change the economic outlook of the US at a broad population level. Changing taxation, regulation, and import/export policies will.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
> Ok the entire top of the field then. This seems to be focusing too much on the fact that it was initially phrased as "the most successful and influential" -- kinda suggesting "all of the most ..." -- and that's not really a claim I would support. I don't think that's really what the other commenter meant, either. Apologies for the confusion. > Google continuing to exist or blowing up won’t fundamentally change the economic outlook of the US at a broad population level. Changing taxation, regulation, and import/export policies will. Right, this is what the FTC is attempting to do with this lawsuit. A person who testified against them in court is an economist who has won both an Emmy and a Nobel Prize. That seems like at least one who's at or near the top in their field seemingly attempting to influence policy at a high level.