Another comment from you, another slanderous mischaracterization. Show me that quotation where I allegedly say that I mean to put no effort into understanding contemporary economics at all. What I said is that I wasn't about to do the equivalent of a Ph.D. in economics.

And I asked if you could inform me as to where I could find the authoritative statements of what you call the welfare models' assumptions, so I could see whether they commit the naturalistic fallacy. You declined to tell me. But why would I have asked if I have no interest in learning anything about contemporary economics at all-- besides what I learned to produce the recent two articles on economics, which isn't nothing?

How many uncharitable misrepresentations are you going to make before it sinks in that your defense of economics is largely emotional?