Now, again, you're denying any increase in wealth increases employment, which means you deny that any of the money saved goes to spending or investment. Instead you say it all becomes tied up in real estate or inflation.

Now what is inflation? It's the raising of prices. You're arguing that lowering of prices has no benefit because... it raises prices. That's not a "complex accounting problem", that's an absurdity.

I'm getting a strong impression that don't even have a minimal grasp on the basics of what you're trying to talk about.

Which leaves your other explanation: all the money becomes "tied in real estate". Now it's possible to buy real estate and not derive any benefit from it. You could choose not to rent it out, not to run a business for it, not to live in it and save rent (the rent saved going back into spending and investment again). That's a pretty stupid thing to do though. Yet you're now arguing that all the money saved from globalization goes into there. That's another absurdity.

That's right. And if you think about it, that's not what you mean either. What you mean to say is that increasing the number of haircuts requires more _activity_ from hairdressers, which expands until said hairdressers are unable to meet the extra demand, at which point if they can afford it and they can find someone or train someone and have the space etc, a new job will be created.

So you're really talking about large increases so that you can neglect in theory the ability of a business to leverage its existing resources to meet demand. It's a nice simplification: if you equate an arbitrarily small change in demand with a continuous increase in employment, you can introduce differential equations to model equilibria.

Trouble is that for many things you might want to model, there are jumps. For example, if you think about computer science students entering the work force, this is correlated with the ends of academic years. So you get a time when there are many available candidates to fill the demands of employers, and then there's the rest of the year when the talent pool is basically unchanged until the academic year ends again. So your company is experiencing demand, and wants to employ more cs students, but it may well have to wait for the next available batch of graduates, or be prepared to spend more and poach from competitors.

Again, your argument depends on all supply and demand curves, across the whole economy, being absolutely straight lines, with not one trade-friendly sector or industry where an increase in demand means an increase in supply.

That's yet another absurdity.

Three absurdities make a pretty weak argument.

Now, onto the science argument. You say:

I don't know how to put this any other way than I already have. Prediction and understanding requires controlled experiments. A physicist in a lab who does controlled experiments is doing science. Even an astronomer who can point a telescope anywhere he likes and can magnify pictures of the sky as much as he likes is controlling his experiments to some extent.

A set of historical data such as employment numbers or currency exchange rates has no control. You can't say, let's magnify the data beyond what we have, you can't say let's go and look at the previous data years before the earliest records, you can't say let's ungroup the data now into constituent time series for a specific subpopulation, etc.

Furthermore, governments are constantly making economic decisions, based on economics. These consist of experiments: changing the economy according to theories.

An astronomer can look at different parts of the sky, but he cannot change it. Nor can he collect arbitrary data from new stars that appear, though an economist can get new data all the time.

An economist thus has far more control than an astronomer. And he can carry out controlled experiments to a greater degree than the astronomer.

So, by your own criteria, economics is a science, yet astrophysics is not.

[ Parent ]