John C.Medaille wrote:  
> 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  
  
  
Employing the phrase "Walrasian equilibrium" no more makes a posting   
relevant to history of economics than does muttering "duck" make a post   
relevant to ornithology.  
  
E. Roy Weintraub