You're the one with all the exclamation points to force your point down my throat. I merely taunted you a bit about using them.
I thought I was being very methodical in my explanation of how your thinking is wrong and limited in vision. You simply dismissed it with the tact that you're trying to educate me. Sorry, but I've done more than my share of reading and researching. That was many years ago and I've moved on to actually creating new thoughts. I'm sorry if you assumed I'm some first year student that has lots to learn yet, but that's not the case.
Now, if you would care to continue this conversation, by all means make your argument that counters what I've said. It is a proposal that has stood the test of a couple years on many different sites and even a university professor trying to look scholarly in front of some of our senators at a state convention dinner. He went down in flames without a suitable rebuttal (although he was a Keynesian).
Re: your second comment about ignoring the laws of econ. I'm not ignoring anything. I'm trying to show that the playing field in which those laws were created and in which they apply is evolving. How that is happening, I have more than explained. I certainly wasn't implying that technology has reached its pinnacle but rather that in isolated areas of technology, and more specifically relevant to certain industries of jobs, this process has begun. I even gave a number of examples which you can feel free to explain how those fail.
I proposed the idea and you simply denied it on the ground that it fails econ 101. I think the onus is on you to prove how exactly it fails.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: