Brilliantly put.
Again, well put.
Personally, though my mind would be screaming “No, no!”, I would have to take it, if only because I find it very hard to understand how seemingly intelligent people can put their trust in theories that have almost no logical basis, and in their denial of the truth, misunderstand many arguments in order to convince themselves than two can sometimes equal three. Gresham and Say’s laws are the most bastardised when it comes to my arguments with neo-Keynesians/neoclassicals. They believe Gresham’s law an endless and omnipotent weapon against free market money; “but the bad money will outcompete the good money”. On explaining that this can only come about with a government, and that that was the thrust of his argument, they either don’t listen or spout some rubbish with almost no meaning.
They are the best example of why accepting contradictory premises causes great psychological strife. Witness the unhappiness caused by criticising their logically unfounded ideas.
EDIT: I went off on a tangent there, but sometimes when you start typing you go on until you’ve said what you needed to say…
Thanks for the replies. Anyway, I didn’t go for it. I have no other job, but thats ok.