Does a discussion about economic fallacies belong the HES list? This  
question - or perhaps objection - has been raised.   
  
Allow me to give a clear yes as an answer. I see two major arguments for a  
yes.   
  
First of all, within academia, the evolution of economics can be studied as  
a story of debunking fallacies. Every new generation has been inspired by  
the "fallacies" (broadly interpreted) of previous generations. Commonly,  
"fallacies" have been a major source of inspiration to economists.  
   
Let me illustrate this argument by five cases from the history of Swedish  
economic thought.  
  
1. Gustav Cassel wanted to purge economics of "metaphysics" - which included  
much of economic thought prior to him.  Fallacies of economists of the past  
should be thrown onto the "scrap-heap". See e g the introduction to Theory  
of Social Economy. He viewed himself as the "voice of economic reason", well  
suited for this task.  
  
2. Eli Heckscher studied mercantilism, inspired by his critical view of  
anything not being liberal.   
  
3. Gunnar Myrdal turned against the value judgements of earlier generation  
of economists, in particular those of his close friend Cassel. (They still  
remained friends although Cassel told Myrdal that he was the "most dangerous  
man in the country" when he embraced him after the inauguration lecture when  
Myrdal replaced Cassel on the chair at Stockholm University.)  
  
4. Bertil Ohlin, in his memoirs, is very open on this account, arguing that  
the best way of getting international recognition is by attacking a fallacy  
of a major figure in the profession, in this case Keynes. Ohlin did this in  
the debate on German reparations and again in 1937 in his critique of  
Keynes' macroeconomics, while introducing the concept of the Stockholm  
School of economics. And the recipe worked well for Ohlin.  
  
5. Knut Wicksell was advised to study economics (by David Davidson) to avoid  
"fallacies" when he presented his neo-malthusian message to the public.  
Wicksell did so and "the rest is history".  
  
If we move out of Sweden, I am convinced that similar cases exist for other  
countries. And today in economics, a most rapid way of gaining a fame and  
respect is to prove that other economists have committed a fallacy,  
preferably a theoretical one. The pay-off is surely higher than making an  
improvement upon existing bodies of thought.   
  
Second of all, outside academia, many prominent economists have been active  
in public debate, as journalists, opinion-makers, policy-advisors, where  
they have attacked "fallacies" of all sorts. These extramural activities  
have been an important channel of ideas and intellectual influence from  
research to policy. This bridge is an important one in the study of the  
history of economics.   
  
To sum up, the study of the history of economics may be viewed as a study of  
fallacies.   
  
Or am I pushing the argument too far?  
  
Lars Jonung