If you had an economic argument to make, you would make it.
Your reliance on ad hominem backed by the fallacy of appeal to authority where the authority is non-existent shows that you are making an ideological political claim, not an economic one.
The comparison to global warming is also hilarious, because, like the political ideology you're espousing it too has been disproven by science. I can do it right here: IR absorption of CO2 is less than water vapor. If you understood the science of global warming, you'd be devastated.
The thing is, when you understand a subject, you can defend your position with arguments. You don't need to rely in the low form of characterizing your opponent or their arguments in derogatory ways. You can simply make counter arguments, presumably, if you're right, superior counter arguments.
That you have chosen not to shows that you've replaced ideology for thinking.
Your reliance on ad hominem backed by the fallacy of appeal to authority where the authority is non-existent shows that you are making an ideological political claim, not an economic one.
The comparison to global warming is also hilarious, because, like the political ideology you're espousing it too has been disproven by science. I can do it right here: IR absorption of CO2 is less than water vapor. If you understood the science of global warming, you'd be devastated.
The thing is, when you understand a subject, you can defend your position with arguments. You don't need to rely in the low form of characterizing your opponent or their arguments in derogatory ways. You can simply make counter arguments, presumably, if you're right, superior counter arguments.
That you have chosen not to shows that you've replaced ideology for thinking.