: JJ: Additionally, without any sort of reason or critique "the School of Chicago" has been referred to as most of the above without any sort of explanation as to why they deserve these descriptions.
: Qx: False. Here's the evidence to back it up.
SDF: John Ralston Saul's critique of economics certainly applies to the Chicago School of Economics, and it certainly applies to Jacobson's arguments. But I'm not clear what the connection is, between Jacobson's arguments and the Chicago School of Economics. Any takers on this one?
: JJ: the difference between myself and y'all is that I admit to my opinions while you try and show that your opinions are based on facts (even the highly esteemed Deathy).
: Qx: It's better to base one's opinions on facts rather than go ahead and state opinions without much in the way of any forethought. Something you have continuously done.
SDF: Yeah, it amazed me, too, to read Jacobson's above statement. What SHOULD one base ones opinions upon? Facts? Falsehoods? Guesses? Innuendo? What was the point again?