>It matters not at all whether one finds these statistics convincing, as
>deLong's claim was that B&S did not understand the regressivity argument.
>Clearly, they did, and rejected it. A fair characterization of their
>argument would have acknowledged this, just as B&S acknowledged the
>argument that led to Congress reversing course on IRAs and presented it
>in enough detail to allow a reader to make up his own mind. That deLong
>instead prefers setting up bogus strawmen to knock down perhaps explains
>why he's a nonentity at some diploma mill, popping off on an
>insignificent mailing list about a book he apparently hasn't read, while
>Barlett and Steele share a Pulitzer and an audience of millions. (Other
>explanations are also likely.)
You're an obnoxious idiot. Why do you spend any time here if it's so awful? A certain degree of venom can be tolerable if it's delivered with some wit, but your stuff so far is witless.
Doug