There has never, and will never be a more intelligently developed

>>2330809
Proving you're wrong--YOU are WRONG--would be hard to do from what little you wrote.

Better communication on your part would be:

>> Prove this theory wrong.

Have we not established that negatives cannot be proven? We're supposed to be scientists, logical, to "keep an open mind to all possibilities". Not small minded without imagination to see ALL possibilities, no matter how impossible they seem. It wouldn't force us to reject what is "likely" true and what is likely practical, mostly-working models [of Reality].

>>2330875
:D
yes. But I would just like to point out that Keynes' system is the most well developed thing I've read in my life.

>>2330884
How so?

feudalism

>>2330809
>never will be
>prove me wrong

hmm