Talk:Macroeconomics

This is a pretty embarrassing page, simply from the standpoint of reasoning.

Worse yet, the error's been on this page since the get-go, it wasn't introduced by a disruptive poster.

There are two ideas outlined in the course of this very short article that cannot be brought into register. They are presented one sentence following the next.

one is the forest versus tree analogy.

two is the assertion that macroeconomics is the opposite of microeconomics.

Let's think about two in the context of one: would anyone seriously try to define trees as the opposite of either a forest or forests generally?

I hope the original poster will one day have the opportunity to take an introductory logic course.

no comment reversion

Tsumetai might also want to consider why I was making the point; an embarrassingly sloppy three sentences are reinstated. Granted the point was made rather bluntly. I had not known much of who was who when I saw the piece; since then, I was pleased to see Tsumetai taking point on getting the thermodynamics silliness out of the evolution discussion.

If conservatives can't come up with a definition of macroeconomics that reflects the level of work on wikipedia, and instead invest that much energy in arguing muddleheadedness about physics... Well, I'll just say I was thinking there'd be more on econ and less on unicorns.