Calling someone the archetypical unscientific economist is clearly ad hominem What s more it is not relevant to an article about a school of thought Such smears belong in the articles about the specific person you are smearing If you want to go down that road the whole criticism section could be filled with things mainstream economists have said about Austrian economists That doesn t add anything to the informative value of the article Regarding the predictions I would remind you that I was against that whole section to begin with but it was you among others that wanted it without any consideration of what economic predictions actually are