> > Well, I was hoping to set the ground rules for discussion. > > You do like trying to impose your rules on others, don't you.
Actually, they aren't my rules. The rules I was proposing were the general rules of experimental inquiry that I have learned. I have also observed that folks who follow them are far more successful, in fields where success itself is empirically measured, than folks who don't. For example, my buddies who have created hundreds of billions of wealth followed these rules. But, since the dialog was to be between you and me, I put out a couple of proposals, expecting that any set of rules would be _our_ rules for debate. See, I've learned that to accomplish anything with other people there has to be at least some commonality. Indeed, you have, in your commentary and insults, repeatedly responded as though clear allusions to communal, and even collegial acts were personal claims. The words "we" and "I" are two separate words, with clearly distinct meaning in the English language. An inability or refusal to see the difference guarantees poor communication. > > First, his statement about the relatively poor rebound from the > depression > > under FDR is falsified by historical data. 33-37 was the best rebound > since > > yearly records were kept. (1880). > > Would you care to quote the statement you are refuting? "The subnormal recovery to 1935, the subnormal prosperity to 1937 and the slump after that are easily accounted for by the difficulties incident to the adaptation to a new fiscal policy, new labor legislation and a general change in the attitude of government to private enterprise all of which can." Looking again, I see he is quoting another's false statement to make his point, my apologies for missing the nuances. > > Professionals almost always publish in professional > > journals edited by other professionals. Crackpots usually self publish. > > Keeping in mind that we are talking about economics, it seems you > consider yourself a crackpot for publishing your analyses yourself on > an email list. This isn't where I publish. :-) Witten's lunch table discussions with his friend Ken on the Middle East does not qualify as publishing either (just in case you want to call string theory crackpot). :-) You can mock academic standards. But, it is a fact that folks who use techniques similar to those used in your arguments here in any endeavor in which there is empirically measurable success or failure (e.g. engineering or science) have failed overwhelmingly, while folks who use the techniques I suppose have had their share of successes. Even I have had a modest success or two. :-) Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
