Thanking you for being so responsive to my inquiries. I think you have gone above and beyond the call of duty. I don't want to be a nag or a pest or a heckler, but for Paul Krugman's sake, I couldn't let the last answer stand....

The author of the community section post is alleged to be completely incoherent. His main argument is that the price-fixing upon which the baby-sitting parable is based causes complications that make the analogy unsuitable as a model. The author of the blog entry impugns the baby-sitting analogy on a variety of other grounds. Rather than exposing the alleged incoherence of these arguments in rebuttal, it is asserted instead that because Paul Krugman's baby-sitting model is a fantasy of his own, the error of the blog lies in that the authors have analyzed it as if it were intended to sufficiently represent reality. It is further admitted that if one of the preconditions of the baby-sitting parable were visited upon our economy in real life, we would hate that system because it would be unnecessarily rigid and inflexible. Yet it appears to be Krugman's intention for us to save our real world by applying the lessons of his fantasy to it.

Given all of the preceding, what reason would anyone have to do this?

Peter Schiff's "Five Chinese Guys" parable was dismissed as silly. If I insisted that Peter Schiff's parable is a fantasy of his own, was never intended to sufficiently reflect reality, and should not be analyzed as if it were, would that cure its silliness?