Econ 101 is the first semester of a multi year degree. By necessity it focuses on idealistic concepts. Nothing wrong with that—of course N-order effects, psychology, and information disparity, etc need to be taken into account in the real world.
Without this understanding one ends up in such a debate.
The problem is that so many people who only take Econ 101 seem to believe their understanding is analogous to understanding the physics of reality by learning Newton's laws and equations of motion.
But it isn't. Econ 101 is more analogous to Aristotelian physics, full of outright falsehoods, self-contradictions, things that sound right but have no basis in reality, and an abject failure and unwillingness to test anything and change your mind once you've seen contradictory results.
So you have millions upon millions shouting "regulation bad" with nary a whiff of systemic understanding.
Funnily, I think this is also true of most traditional religions. I have known a variety of thoughtful and sincere religious people over the years. They have studied extensively and deeply engaged with the human meaning of the words. But I've also met a lot of very shallowly religious people, either because they haven't bothered or because they work energetically to maintain a narrow take because it's socially or economically useful to them.
And of course there's an intersection in what I've heard called the "Supply Side Jesus" view.
> The problem is that so many people who only take Econ 101 seem to believe their understanding is analogous to understanding the physics of reality by learning Newton's laws and equations of motion.
This is in my opinion a bad analogy: if you have really understood these physics topics, your understanding of physics is surprisingly deep (I claim better than 99 % of the population) - classical mechanics is (unknown to many) an insanely deep rabbit hole.
You haven't demonstrated anything here. One would think in four paragraphs you'd be motivated to give > 0 details or reasoning. And no, political propaganda doesn't count.
The "political" is a forewarning to not bother without details. Others already strayed into that territory. As it stands the post is empty rhetoric and insults against a reasonably-well-understood subject studied over centuries.
It's insulting the 101 class much more than the subject. You could even take it as a compliment to the breadth of economics that a proper introduction takes longer.
I don't think you have much standing to complain about negative posts.
I'm also not defending it, although I might be willing to try if you asked nicely. My point is that that your complaint is pretty hollow. "Oh no, somebody posting for free on the internet didn't do the work I wanted! They must be bad!" I guess you get your kicks, but I think it's a pretty low value contribution, in that it is shot through with unearned contempt.
I got annoyed and responded in kind. So what? Backing up assertions with details is step zero of a worthwhile post. Taught in middle-school and not the responsibility of the reader.
The details never came out despite several subthreads.
If your priority is protocol over an attempt at truth you've made it clear. Been a while and I don't remember the original assertion so might as well save yourself the time.
Without this understanding one ends up in such a debate.