>Well, your revised position is much more reasonable. Score one for discourse.

Cheers :)

​

>I still completely disagree with your insistence that making a claim you can't support well is a good idea. C'est la vie.

That's completely fine. I'm not upset XDXD

​

>I think it would be better if only intelligent people made decisions for other people, but I have yet to hear any ethical, or maybe moral is the better word, ways to enforce any kind of such system in practice.

Which is precisely the reason why I haven't mentioned morals or ethics.

​

>My last little quibble with your revised criteria is that there are very few types of management of large masses of people that can't be considered a form of government/politics. Seems like you're triangulating on the CEOs or owners of large companies. If that's the case, then I'll politely disagree with you - I would trust academics with less vested interest to provide more intelligent and more objective positions on economic policy. Important to note: I said LESS vested interest (than corporate magnates), not none at all. I would say that rank-and-file academia have less vested interest in economic policy than the average CEO, as an example.

Which is why I mentioned direct management. I should've clarified - people who know by name all who they manage. Owners of successful hitech startups (leave alone Musk - he's tad too big XDXD), operations managers in corporations and such.

Why do I tend to trust this kind of people? Because they tend to be very rational and they know people. Academia are too detached, they live in their academic world and tend to believe that everybody else is just like them, maybe less educated.

Also, academia is very interested in ensuring their own employment. Contrary to businessmen, who can just make money out of thin air, literally buying lemons and selling lemonade if there's nothing better, academia isn't really capable of surviving in the wild and depends on government donations.