Thanks.

I see the rationale for the markets as dissemblings for strategic gambling. the only diffference between the gambler at the roulette table and the stock or commodity trader, is that the latter has computer generated probability data, while the gamer at the table has uncanny intuition to ow tech data.

The “dislocations” of markets and abuses by traders and investors are the proof that theory doesn’t accurately account for the practical consequences beyond apologetic statistics. It does little for those affected. I would guess that the compensatory gains occur to other micro-units while those effcted are left on the side of the macro-economic highway as roadkill.

A much as probability can be an accurte predictor of natural, unbiased processes, it cannot account for intentional willfullness for wrong dooing and abuses. To that extent, the theories of macro-economics that are based on probblsitic models donot address the profound affect of unethical greed that plays a LARGER factor in the DISRUPTIONS and DISLOCATIONS than the theorizers have been willing to admit.

Macro-economics are more the tool for high tech gambling, than it is the architecture for micro-economic security.

Gratuities accepted at http://www.paypal.com account Pr_Arjuna@yahoo.com

From what I can gather from the Reagan site - all of the reading is in the last box. If you want to start from the top/I’ll start from the bottom (I think that will work out to about 3 apiece) If you’ve already started reading so be it…see you tomorrow

I too consider myself liberal-minded, but no one can deny the amazing amount of waste, gridlock, and red tape that is produced by our government system. To me, it’s a necessary evil created by over 200 years of compromises. I think corruption and exploitation amongst American politicians is mild compared to what we often perceive– the real concern is people’s willingness to voluntarily give up their rights in favor of more government power and their unwillingness to hold political leaders accountable for their actions.

So I guess my main point is that the problem with fiscal policy isn’t necessarily corruption on the part of politicians– the issue is the lack of a unified, strategic approach to the economy. The Fed can make unilateral decisions and easily reverse them, while the government is composed of fifty state legislatures and one Congress all trying to make their constituents happy, which is not possible without some heavy costs.

Wow, this post is way longer than I thought it would be! Alright, I should stop rambling now. But I hope your boyfriend is okay! (I’m personally thankful mine has never had a drink in his life– puking is so unattractive.)

Decent review. I’m sorry that my entry (your assigned reading) appeared so late; but its there now.

On to your entry. I found this stuff a bit easier because I did the Fed Challenge last semester and the textbook we used discussed these matters in some detail (though not at the level at which Friedman and others in the reader discuss them). If you’re interested, I’m sure someone in the department has a copy of Mishkin’s Money and Banking textbook. It’s a dry read, but it may help.

Either way, it sounds like you got the gist of the article. This stuff is so ingrained into what we were taught in intermediate macro that its hard to pick out something too controversial. I think, however, that Friedman’s laissez-faire leanings come out a great deal. HIs message to policy makers seems to be “Don’t screw up, and don’t give yourself many chances to screw up.”

Perhaps he’s right, but then Friedman in part was reacting to the hands-on attitude of Keynesians, and I think this attitude was necessary to counterbalance the leanings toward a planned economy.

Anyway, a cogent review. If you read it again, see if you can tease out something that you really agree or disagree with. I look forward to hearing your response to my review, as well.

-Isaac