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: yard_man who wrote (2410)	6/11/2003 7:13:51 PM
From: GraceZ	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. That doesn't it mean it has rigor. Just consider defining inflation in terms of money supply. 'nuf said. Read the entirey of Human Action. It has less rigor than does "Wealth of Nations". Mises was very rigorous in his approach because he started at the beginning -- what do you think rigor is?? There no evidence of rigor in your sloppy thinking. Is it embodied in econometrics?? There's no point in mentioning what you do not know. 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 - You should take this advice. - like you -- many just accept the thesis that a constant money supply == panics and crashes without having thought these things through. You haven't thought these through because when the things you claim are taken to their logical ends, you get nothing but contradictions as was shown in my previous post. For your information it is this "taking to its logical conclusion" that is an important part of rigor. 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. Read. There is no rigor in economics because those doing it are illiterate. With economics -- the examination of actions and choices -- the approach has to be different, to be rigorous. What kind of self-serving double talk is this?