For some reason we like killing submissions without looking into them now? This is not a duplicate, it is evidence that a very influential economic leader (Nobel laureate) not only is incompetent, but lies to protect his reputation.
Don't forget the Federal Reserve, the most evil of all regulation.
As for the rich, they not only pay most of the taxes (that end up going to services they are least likely to use), but they also buy lots of stuff (increasing jobs needed), invest in companies/municipalities/fed via stocks and bonds, and save (which provides credit for others). So even the rich, just by being rich help others.
I'm not sure I buy the 'Rich don't use what they pay for' argument when it comes to taxes. Just because you're not living in government housing or collecting any welfare doesn't necessarily mean you're using fewer tax dollars.
The US military industrial complex, the largest socialist institution in the world, exists in part to protect the wealth of this nation. If the US was a much poorer nation, we would have significantly less need for a large military (nor could we afford it). If you're wealthy, you're probably just as reliant on roads and airports, perhaps even more so than a poor person who probably walks/bikes more often. The wealthy are also completely dependent on affordable, readily available education (K-12 and higher education) to train the workforce. Then there's all the wealth created in the private sector that have been reaped from research originally conducted by NASA, the NIH, and for the military. And lets not get started on corporate welfare which props up everyone's investments in the domestic equities markets.
Most of what I've listed is an indirect benefit, but lets not pretend that the wealthy have decoupled themselves from the spendings of the US Government. Spending is rarely cut for just this reason: the big money backing the politicians doesn't want its share of the government cheese to disappear. It's no accident true small government proponents are marginalized and replaced with phony doppelgangers spewing platitudes about "small government" only to turn around and feed the very beast they've been elected to destroy.
One of the most ubiquitous and profitable types of models would be short-term weather forecasting. These are regularly wrong by several degrees, misjudging precipitation, etc, when trying to predict just 12 hours in advance. There's absolutely no point in looking at forecasts greater than three days, they're barely a guess, throw all the "accurate" equations and you want at it.
[Disclaimer: I'm from the midwest - capricious weather.]
Weather and climate forecasting confront different problems.
I can't predict the behaviour of a single gas module but I can predict the behaviour of the gas as a whole as the randomness averages out.
Climate forecasting is a lot more complex a system but the daily variability, at least, averages out in the same way.
(Another analogy some people use is that we can predict that winter is colder than summer even if some days in the season aren't etc. this isn't really an argument for modeling but I suppose it's easy to grasp.)
Some of his complaints seem to be about C#, which is not required. Also, the exclusion of an ORM is probably a good thing, so you can choose whatever you want, similar to the view engine.
You're right, the exclusion of a default ORM is a good thing. They do ship ORMs with the .NET framework though so if you need one, it's right there to use. And you can plug in any 3rd party one you want like NHibernate or SubSonic (which was inspired by ActiveRecord) or whatever.
StackOverflow (the biggest public ASP.NET MVC site that I know of) uses LINQ to SQL for instance, which is built in to the framework.
MS gets grief when they include something people don't want by default so they decided with MVC to avoid an ORM war and give people the option to use whatever they want (or are already using) and they get grief anyway.
This is hardly limited to private schools. I went to a state university and they do the same thing while simultaneously taking money without my direct authorization (taxes; still in the state).
