Dozy, I welcome you to the board.
Your 364 economists comparison is lacking.
For me there are two glaring reasons why you're mistaken and guilty of stretching a comparison to its breaking point. Which by the way is never a good debate tactic. When one argument fails you don't keep restating it, you move on. Always have more than one argument in your arsenal
1 - Was this a historical review which would have solid factual conclusion or a predictive analysis which would be affected by necessary assumptions?
2 - How many economists issued an opinion on Thatcher's reforms? If we were to look at every economist who made a prediction of how Thatcher's reforms would work out would they all agree? What about economists from other parts of the world?
2 Continued - If you have the information, please post every historical authority who states that the date of Jerusalem's fall is either unknown or is 607BCE. If I'm correct, and I certainly may not be, Rolf Furuli doesn't put forward 607BCE as the date for Jerusalem's destruction. His work then may qualify for the date of Jerusalem's fall being unknown category.
Anway, predicting the future can be tough so we shan't be too hard on those poor economists. If you doubt the difficulty of prediction just ask the WTS.