http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_01_4_higgs.pdf
Regime Uncertainty: Why the Great Depression Lasted So Long and Why
Prosperity Resumed after the War
by Robert Higgs
...Finally, this way of understanding the Great Duration meshes nicely with a
proper understanding of the Great Escape after
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:03 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_01_4_higgs.pdf
Regime Uncertainty: Why the Great Depression Lasted So Long and Why
Prosperity Resumed after the War
by Robert Higgs
Who is a laissez-fair economist
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who is a laissez-fair economist at a libertarian think tank, in case anybody
is wondering. Not that there's any surprise in that.
Attacking a person is easier than refuting a paper that gives detailed
arguments, data, and
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:49 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Who is a laissez-fair economist at a libertarian think tank, in case
anybody
is wondering. Not that there's any surprise in that.
Attacking a
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whoa there, John. You, of all people here, consider calling somebody a
laissez-fair economist at a libertarian think tank an attack!?
Actually, I don't. But the relevant fact is, what do you consider it?
Why did you not
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:01 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Actually, I don't. But the relevant fact is, what do you consider it?
Why did you not post a similar background note on, for example, James
Hamilton?
Who?
Nick
___
On 11/11/2008, at 6:56 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:49 AM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Who is a laissez-fair economist at a libertarian think tank, in case
anybody
is wondering. Not
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:01 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Actually, I don't. But the relevant fact is, what do you consider it?
Why did you not post a similar background note on, for example, James
Hamilton?
Who?
Nick
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given that that's pretty much all you do, I wasn't wondering. That is
the reason I stopped reading your posts directly, 'cause you spend
your entire time
I bow down to the all-knowing Charlie, who knows pretty much all I
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 12:01 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Actually, I don't. But the relevant fact is, what do you consider it?
Why did you not post a similar background note on, for example, James
Hamilton?
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 2:01 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
I'm not sure if you are joking. You responded to a thread I started
with a quote from James Hamilton. If you are serious, I guess you are
saying that you read my quote of James Hamilton in that thread, but
you did not
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I consider it my privilege to do so or not... nobody gets to tell me how to
spend my time. ;-)
Of course, you are obviously free to point out affiliations when and
if you wish! I only meant to point out that it would make
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 4:33 PM, John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
... it would make for a more
interesting discussion to talk about HIgg's arguments rather than his
affiliations.
True.
Nick
(who doesn't have much time right now)
___
13 matches
Mail list logo
