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 : Heinz Blasnik- Views You Can Use -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GraceZ who wrote (2406)	6/11/2003 2:01:12 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4905

>>The whole problem is that many of these things were written without the rigor << I strongly disagree. Mises constructed a very good, logically consistent conceptual framework for economics. Read the entirey of Human Action. Mises was very rigorous in his approach because he started at the beginning -- what do you think rigor is?? Is it embodied in econometrics?? Is it numerical in nature?? what do you mean by rigor?? A long winded opinionated historical treatise ... Mises was very good at setting out the abstractions that he used and took great pains to examine where said abstractions broke down. You simply won't find that in many of the writings today -- assumptions are built upon other assumptions -- with no examination of them -- like you -- many just accept the thesis that a constant money supply == panics and crashes without having thought these things through. One of the biggest mistakes Mises dwells on and by golly, he is right, is that folks want to approach economics as though it were a physical science and not a social science. With economics -- the examination of actions and choices -- the approach has to be different, to be rigorous.

To: GraceZ who wrote (2406)	6/11/2003 2:09:13 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4905

>>Friedman isn't that far away from Mises if you look at what I said this morning about Friedman's idea of holding the growth of the money supply at a constant 2% to match the long run rate of productivity growth<< this is a distortion, Grace -- the Austrian school does not admit the money supply should grow with anything for the economy function at its best. Friedman is very far away from the Austrian school in his reasoning -- the theory that he is most famous for among laymen -- that the Great Depression could have been avoided if the money supply had been allowed to grow -- is antithetical to the Austrian cycle theory. That's not my interpretation or distortion. it is a fact -- you can read it yourself.

To: GraceZ who wrote (2406)	6/11/2003 4:40:32 PM
From: Mike M2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4905

Grace, the Austrians differ greatly with the monetarists with their respective explanations/causes of the Great Depression. Monetarists focus on the money supply while Austrians look money and credit from non bank sources as well. Mike