=================== HES POSTING ====================== 
 
[Slightly edited by RBE] 
 
May I put forward, as an << agent provocateur >>, the hypothesis that the  
set of the Friedmans's Ideas are problems that belong to epistemology  
rather than to taxonomy, unless the two can be mixed with each other? 
 
Actually, Friedman's thought remains trapped in a very strong  
contradiction that is not the admission of a relation between income and  
money supply, but the current inability in giving the << inflation by  
costs >> an original status. According to measurable reality, << inflation  
by costs >> exists and can't be reduced to << inflation by demand >>.  
When the prices rise in a context of relative oversupply and of increasing  
unemployment, the cause can't be an excess of currencies in front of  
commodities. Friedman knows well the fact, of course. He knows, too, that  
the explanation of increasing costs by increasing wages refers, in the  
last resort, to << inflation by demand >>. And the most interesting point is  
that Keynesian thought leads to the same theoretical crash! 
 
That's the reason why restrictive monetary policies continue to be run,  
even when salaries drop. And that's again the reason why Friedman  
introduces a notion of elapsed time, << For there is much evidence that  
even during business cycles the money stock plays a largely independant  
role >>. But what about the persistent inflation through the cycles series  
(already more than fifty years, excuse for the few!), even when the  
money stock is under control? Friedman escapes the problem through the  
notions of << inertia >>, << rigidity >>, << expectations >> which are non - 
scientific in the popperian sense -- only based on behaviour  
hypotheses, that is to say metaphysical ones. 
 
My question, which may be ingenuous, can be as follows: is epistemology a  
category of taxonomy, or does a possible taxonomy of  
epistemology exist? For instance: is Friedman's contradiction similar to  
Marx's trying unsuccessfully to transform his << surplus-value rate >> in a  
<< profit rate >> (problem which is still unresolved, too), or of another  
category? 
 
Best regards 
 
Romain Kroes 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]