Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tradermike_1999 who wrote (2818)	4/5/2001 12:56:25 PM
From: MeDroogies	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 74559

That's a viewpoint. I don't happen to subscribe to it. I don't happen to subscribe to Kudlow's completely, either. However, as I pointed out he TECHNICALLY is correct. BTW, I don't see that his viewpoint is any more or less politically tainted than anyone else's. It's hard to look at other economists such as Galbraith, or even Blinder (who was on the Fed), or anyone else...and not see them spouting economics that basically support their political viewpoints. The problem with economics is not that it isn't a science, or that it can't explain the functioning of the economy. The problem is that economics is fundamentally tied to the study of the behavior of people in general. All of Smith's works were inextricably tied to moral behavior and the actions of men. As a result, most economists feel that it is their role to support a theory of behavior as opposed to a theory of actual activity. The Austrian School came closest to avoiding political viewpoints. Unfortunately, Friedman is often seen as a disciple of that school. Certainly, he is an offshoot, but he is quite different fundamentally. Generally, however, Friedman is an excellent economist, whatever you may think of his political views.