John Williams wrote: > > No, you were rambling on with nonsense, failing to address a single > argument in the Higg's paper.
Well, I was hoping to set the ground rules for discussion. But, I have two obvious comments on the Higgs paper. 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). Second, let me refer to his technique. The paper you referenced was self published. He was the editor of the journal that it was published in. That's a big red flag. Professionals almost always publish in professional journals edited by other professionals. Crackpots usually self publish. But, I'm not sure either matters to you. That's why I wanted to ask if it did. I'm guessing you consider good technique and actually agreeing with known data nonsense, but I'd be delighted to be surprised. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
