Not sure you understand what ad hom is other than a phrase to bandy about. I’ve no idea what you’re like in real life and zero interest in abusing you. My post addressed the tone of your posts.
Ad hom is where you attack the poster not the post.
Which is exactly what do did.
I have no idea whether you’re this self-righteous in real life but that is the tone of your posts.
If you find my posts self righteous, then don't read them.
If you do respond, respond to the argument, not to the person as you have done
They are lectures which start from a position of wanting to educate people.
Not true. They start from a position of trying to educate myself
That in turn starts from the incredible assumption that we all need educating
I can’t speak for everyone, but I know I need educating. I believe that learning is a life long experience and part of that learning experience is, for me, reading and then writing down arguments with references and acknowledgements.
If you disagree with the argument, then disagree with the argument, references and acknowledgements, not the person.
and apparently only you can do it.
Not true. I constantly reference economists, historians and the like. By trying to reduce any argument you have to me personally is to try to avoid the substantive argument.
It is a demonstrable favt that your posts pose questions where you dispute all answers bar your own as ypu’re all over this forum doing exactly that.
I pose questions and I question the answers. If you don't like it, either make an argument addressing the substantive point, or, if you find my posts objectionable in any way, dont read them
You’re now telling us Stieglitz would disagree, so apparently you’ve the gift of being able to put words in the mouth of others too.
Having seen him in person; heard my exact point being made to him by another audience member and then heard him agree with them/gently concede the point I’m afraid your assumption of his answer is simply wrong.
Is it? My point was not about “investment”, that was in the quote you addressed to another poster. My response was to what you quoted when you addressed me which but was about the assumptions you made about the significance of 2008 to the topic of this thread