> Wild false equivalency.

My comparison is intentionally exaggerated. The post claims that it doesn't matter what reason the doctor has for telling you a lie, that it's just obviously wrong. I think this is ludicrous. If it's sometimes permissible for a doctor to lie, then it might also be permissible for an economist to lie.

I don't really follow the rest of what you're claiming, perhaps because you're responding to some point that I haven't made. In particular you seem to have a bone to pick with economists, and this is very vague:

> Markets react to actions determined not by the knowledge itself but by discrete reactions to the knowledge called thoughts.

That still seems like a wild literal over-interpretation. If we think like a physicist we can say that prosocial lying is wrong yet still understand that the mathematician will consider it okay in the limit case.

> If economists hadn’t given up on knowledge oh about a century ago or so,

You're writing this as if everybody knows what you're referring to, but I really don't. What are you referring to? What does it mean for someone to "give up on knowledge"?