SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
[log in to unmask] (susan feiner)
Date:
Fri Mar 31 17:19:03 2006
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (18 lines)
----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
Greg Ransom, writing about A. Smith, noted, in part: 
 
>Where else did this empirical problem / causal solution explanatory  
>structure get so plainly and elequently cast in all of the earlier  
>economic literature?  My answer would be "nowhere". 
> 
 
I am just wondering if he has forgotten about Karl Marx?  Does Marx's casting of the
empirical problem/causal solution explanatory structure not qualify because it is either
not plain enough? or not eloquent enough? or not early enough?
 
Susan Feiner 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask] 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2