Economists Have Much To Be Humble About.

The Debate Can Be Put In The Form Of The Question: Resolved, That The Best Of Money Managers Cannot Be Demonstrated To Be Able To Deliver The Goods Of Superior Portfolio-selection Performance. Any Jury That Reviews The Evidence, And There Is A Great Deal Of Relevant Evidence, Must At Least Come Out With The Scottish Verdict: Superior Investment Performance Is Unproved.

Economics Has Never Been A Science - And It Is Even Less Now Than A Few Years Ago.

Second, They [those Who Disagree With Market Efficiency] Always Claim They Know A Man, A Bank, Or A Fund That Does Do Better. Alas, Anecdotes Are Not Science. And Once Wharton School Dissertations Seek To Quantify The Performers, These Have A Tendency To Evaporate Into The Air - Or, At Least, Into Statistically Insignificant T-statistics.

The Growth Of A Nation's Productive Potential Is The Central Factor In Determining Its Growth In Real Wages And Living Standards.... High Rates Of Investment And Saving Usually Have A Big Payoff In Promoting Economic Growth.

An American Economist Of Two Generations Ago, H. J. Davenport, Who Was The Best Friend Thorstein Veblen Ever Had (veblen Actually Lived For A Time In Davenport's Coal Cellar) Once Said: "there Is No Reason Why Theoretical Economics Should Be A Monopoly Of The Reactionaries." All My Life I Have Tried To Take This Warning To Heart, And I Dare Call It To Your Favorable Attention.