The second is a link to a PDF of a story in Barron’s, which wasn’t part of the study. If you don’t like the study’s parameters, that’s one thing, but Moore isn’t making that argument.
The third is a link to a PDF of a good Atlanta Journal-Constitution series, again, outside the scope and again reinforcing the point.
The fourth links to a story in the Christian Science Monitor—also outside the study’s parameters and not at all part of the mainstream financial press—about borrowers’ bilking banks, the opposite of what we were looking for.
It’s not right to just throw links up against the wall, especially when precisely none of them stick.
There’s a real debate to be had here. Let’s have it, and let’s not be “weak” or “lazy” about it, and no “punking out,” either.
You got that, bubble-dwelling “journo profs”?
And I also ask you to please refrain from Twitter bullying w/words like “delusional” and “fantasia” when YOU have NO case.
Right, no Twitter bullying.