>>I have not done significant research beyond the article linked, which includes no reference to supporting and more rigorous arguments produced by this group.

>>I have not done significant research beyond the article linked, which includes no reference to supporting and more rigorous arguments produced by this group. >So.. because you are to lazy to look up whether they have made good arguments you assume that they haven't? Because I was at work and had limited time, I was limited to the resources linked in the article, which included a very non-rigorous page which is more concerned with its manifesto and self-congratulatorily declaiming the "mainstream." I also had the content of the conference they were protesting, and the quotes in support of their views. The conference, as others have pointed out numerous times covered some pretty heterodox views to begin with, and that it was their choice of target as representative of the mainstream implies a naive understanding of what is and is not mainstream economics. The quotes of the protesters and the economics these quotes represent are not heterodox so much as well-refuted theories, again, as others have covered numerous times in other comments. >>A rough equivalent would be protesting a physics conference because the solar system model of an atom is not representative of reality. >No. That would imply that they are cranks and you have no evidence of that. It's like you already have made up your mind on what to think without listening, which is kind of why they have to resort to demonstrations in the first place. :) I have laid out above my reasoning for not putting merit toward their academic rigor. I, personally, loathe the "economics" put forth as support for popular political policy of the day, so I came into the article sympathetic to the thesis. Every element of the article and supporting evidence I was able to find based on my limited time during work pointed to the conclusions that I drew. Finally, it is clear without needing further research that they do clearly hold the belief that the following quote is representative of mainstream economics: "the fantasy world of neoclassical economics — a faith-based religion of perfect markets, enlightened consumers and infinite growth that shapes the fates of billions." This belief is a strawman caricature of an introductory economics model. To declaim mainstream economics based on this understanding is hopelessly naive and is exactly akin to declaim modern physics because of the solar system model of an atom (another 101-level model which is an un-nuanced but accurate in broad strokes model used to introduce new students to a field). Whether the quotation above is central to their argument, or tangential, my comparison holds. Further, the case is much stronger that the quotation above is of primary concern to their argument, which only strengthens any critique based on it. I appreciate your feedback on how to come off less dismissive of the original article.