Not saying my paper is the greatest thing in the world or that it has no flaws (far from it), but when a referee rejects the paper because he/she has zero knowledge of very basic econometrics and makes assumptions about stuff that was clearly explained in the paper. Of course, the editor barely read the paper himself and basically cited the referee report verbatim without recognizing how retarded the referee is and should have failed PhD first year econometrics.
This is why every paper not desk rejected should have at least two referees. To create a buffer for retarded referees such as this one. I am very open to constructive criticism, but this was just straight up asinine.
I'm not going to include details because that may give myself away to the referee or editor but I'm not asking for people to agree with me that the referee is straight up a dumbass. I'm wondering if anyone else got rejected because of one referee that doesn't understand, to give an example completely unrelated to my referee, why one should use a logit/probit model when the dependent variable is a 0 1 variable, or why one doesn't have to include a control variable that is perfectly collinear with some other control variable.