As you may have noticed, my approach is from the Classical, when (perhaps)  
things were simpler. In any event, I do think that we must try to retreat  
from the arcane - an ever present trap for academe.  
  
So, the forms of cooperation are two - voluntary and involuntary.  
  
The first is, of course, contract in all its forms from a ream of paper to  
handshake. The second introduces coercion of some kind.  
  
We should try for simplicity  
  
The history of economic science ought properly to show its reductionist  
nature, yet the reverse seems to be true.  
  
Yet, what could be simpler than economics, a science that at one time dealt  
with the nature, the production, and the distribution of wealth?  
  
In fact, I wonder how difficult it would be now to establish the defined  
concept that is given the term "wealth"?  
  
Before any of the wonderful areas we might explore in many sciences comes  
the need to eat, drink, clothe, and shelter ourselves - the substance of  
economics.  
  
Yet, this basic science appears at times to have broken loose from its  
roots. For example, we don't really seem to know why we fall into recession  
and worse we don't seem to be too sure why we are booming.  
  
Not that there aren't theories of the business cycle, there are plenty. Paul  
Samuelson suggests that a diligent student could prepare a list that would  
'run into dozens'.  
  
So, are we discussing the history of a science that has become an end in  
itself while perhaps losing touch with the real world? Or as Prabhu asks,  
how do we evaluate economic history - from inside the discipline, or from  
outside where uncertainty is the only thing that's certain.  
  
Harry Pollard