SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Date:
Fri Mar 31 17:19:02 2006
Message-ID:
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (Tony Brewer)
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (18 lines)
----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
I agree with Michael on one thing - I do not want to repeat arguments  
on which we must just agree to differ.  
 
I must, however, protest at his misunderstanding of my last post. He  
says that I believe 'that the classical political economists would  
not or could not let ideological concerns shape their writings.' But my 
last post said exactly the opposite: 'The classicals were politically  
aware and politically motivated.' What I do not believe is that their  
silence about the game laws was motivated by the factors that Michael  
adduces. I have already explained why. 
 
Tony Brewer 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask] 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2