Sounds like a great opportunity. *fingers crossed*

As with most lists on the internet, I first glanced through the headers. Initially, I found myself remarkably in agreement, at least in part, with most of their points. 1. Economics is not a science in the way that I safely assumed they used the term "science". It is not physics. However, it is a science in the way Boettke and I use the term. 2. Efficiency, as used by many Samuelsonian economists, is greatly overplayed. Economists like McCloskey are right when they talk about virtues beyond prudence. 3. Institutions are important and looking at only the "market" in some perfect competition, equilibrium manner is of limited value. And my reasoning continued for the rest... The problem with Robert Atkinson and Michael Lind's analysis is not that economics is wrong, but that bad economics is wrong.