Economists themselves, however, are not supposed to bash back. So when I decided to break that rule, I fully expected retribution.
Some people have a very narrow definition of what constitutes valid economics.
I am willing to give a hearing to any economic argument that does not contain obvious logical holes, or ignore readily available evidence. In particular, if someone consistently produces economic arguments that simply do not add up, or makes factual assertions that can be flatly disproved by spending a few minutes with the Statistical Abstract of the United States and a hand calculator, I don't care what other virtues he may have or positions he may hold. He may be a gifted phrasemaker and a lion of the lecture circuit, but he is not a serious economic thinker. There is a grain of truth to this charge. Although my criteria for an idea worth listening to sound mild, they are not that easy to satisfy.