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: Don Lloyd who wrote (5709)	7/8/2001 12:59:57 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 74559

>>Your well-known hostility to economic theory should be directed at false theories, not theory in general.<< Aw, c'mon, Don, not "hostility." Grumpiness, grouchiness, maybe even irritability, but not hostility. I read economic history for a minimum of a couple of hours a day, every day, looking for history, not theory, and sometimes I get tired of wading through the theory to get to the history. But nobody else really makes the effort to get the part of the history I am looking for right. The overlap between economic history, history, and economics is sort of vague - pure economic theory is fine in . . . theory . . . but I want facts, and don't trust theory unless it's been tested using econometrics, with facts as input. Economic historians are at least meticulous about their economic facts, which is more than you can say for most historians or journalists. The odd thing about economic history is how counterintuitive the econometrics turn out to be, frequently.