Now, why would any of that sound smug? Honestly, I wrote a response to some of your points, but I am extremely irritated and it showed. I deleted my post; perhaps I will post again at a later date.
It might behoove you, in other conversations you may have, not to presume that because someone does not share your opinion that what they require is automatically greater education on the topic. Although it's true that I have not read the only book that you seem able to recommend, I do not think that my previous posts indicate that I am either unread in, nor completely ignorant of, economics. I have done my best to have a civil conversation with you, despite our obviously different points of view, and your unfounded condescension is insulting.
I too complain about the tendency of people on the internet to assume that those who disagree with them "just don't get it" because they lack education/intelligence/sophistication. I think assuming that is very obstructive to a kind of debate in which we can learn something. That's why I am very careful not to assume that. And I even explicitly added that I did not intend the comment to be condescending.
No, my comment was not a simple shot against your education. I did not presume that you are unread in or ignorant of economics in general, or require greater education, I judged objectively from your arguments in our rather lengthy discussion. (In my opinion, of course.)
You seem to hold beliefs that are widely regarded as incorrect by economists, such as exploitation theory or your understanding of the effects of property rights or, well, the very meaning of capitalism. (See post 139
, and the ones before.)
They are even known to economists as the most common mistakes the general public makes.
It's not that I think that I'm sooo much more educated, I just happened to recently have read about those specific common mistakes. That's why I notice them. In fact our discussion started with a list I made about common economic mistakes (post 130
If I notice you making those mistakes, what am I supposed to tell you? Should I lecture you about them? That
would be condescending. No, I have to tell you that you hold common mistakes. And that it would be more effective for you to get the official knowledge from professional literature, than for me to lecture you on specific points. I did respond to some of your points, but when I noticed that almost everyone of our disagreements was about the meaning of words or a common economic mistake, I felt there was no point in lecturing you about it all. I referred you to literature specifically because I have limited knowledge and didn't want to come off as a condescending know-it-all smug.