Warren is a lawyer, not an economist.
Her academic career in that field is very impressive, but that has nothing to with an understanding of the science of Economics, which is notoriously full of counterintuitive and misunderstood truths.
Her academic career in that field is very impressive, but that has nothing to with an understanding of the science of Economics, which is notoriously full of counterintuitive and misunderstood truths.
(I'm not familiar enough with Ms. Warren's background to have a substantiated opinion either way, though I certainly don't doubt her intelligence.)
BurningFrog is arguing that that is not correct because Senator Warren is not an authority in the first place.
You could still argue that she is correct; but (assuming BurningFrog's judgements on her qualifications), that arguement must be on the merits of her arguements, not her qualifications.
In it, Nokinside claimed that Warren is an expert in Economics due to her academic career. That's what I'm arguing against.
I of course agree that people from any background, including Warren's, can make claims about Economics that should be discussed on their merits, not dismissed (or accepted...) because of the speaker's academic background.
The poster doesn't understand economics at all if they think changes in relative housing prices don't affect housing supply.