----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
It may be that this millennium like the last produced no great  
economists. Veblen might be right, economics is in a pre-scientific  
stage. Or perhaps we don't have an agreed upon criteria for judging.   
 
If we look at other disciplines and try to discern what made the great  
great, we see one simple criteria. Consider for instance, Newton,  
Darwin, Einstein, Bohr. What each of them did, and what others didn't,  
was to find a simple key and apply it to give the discipline coherence.   
 
Since the economy is dynamic, I would contend that a great economist  
would have to find a key which drives the system and apply it to show  
its importance.   
 
On this basis there are very few contenders for the title of greatest 
economists. 
 
Adam Smith, for his insight that the pursuit of private interest could 
maintain a viable economy. (I know there were precursors, Mandeville, 
etc., but they only had the key in their hands. They didn't use it.) 
 
Marx, for his insights into the dynamic role played by the tension 
between the forces of production and the relations of production. For 
his insight into how a system of formal equal exchanges could co-exist 
with substantially unequal exchanges. 
 
Marshall, for his integration of the subjective and objective factors 
into the first clear understanding of supply and demand. 
 
The predictions and the analytic tools are not important. The details of  
how these insights were used is also unimportant. No one cares if  
Darwin got a few things wrong or if Newton spent many years of his  
life pursuing alchemy. What is important is that they opened doors for  
the epigones and technicians.   
 
Rod Hay 
Batoche Books 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]