E. Roy Weintraub wrote:  
>Remind me again what such uninformed   
>essentialist proclamations about the true nature   
>of physics, and the true nature of economics,   
>have to do with the History of Economics?  
  
  
"Uniformed" is easy to say, but if you have a   
theory of physics in which the fall of rocks,   
feathers, and 747s are unaffected by air pressure, I would like to hear it.  
  
However, you are correct in asking about the   
connection with History, since I foolishly cut   
out the post I was responding to. It was Doug   
Mackensie's post in which he noted that "Adopting the term  
open trade does nothing if the idea of Walrasian  
competitive equilibrium remains as the central concept  
in modern economic theory. Institutional factors will  
be downplayed or ignored for as long as economists  
continue to think of the Walrasian pure exchange model  
as 'high theory'. Economists who think in terms of  
pure exchange will end up with a mistaken notion of  
efficient trade no matter how it is termed, so long as  
they are educated in Walrasian terms. "  
  
Sorry for the confusion.  
  
  
John C. Medaille