In his thoughtful comment on history and genealogy, Humberto concludes   
that "more sophisticated definitions are what we are really chasing."   
This seems reasonable to me as far as it goes. But, quite obviously, it   
raises the question: "What is a more sophisticated definition?" We   
could, like the tigers in Little Black Sambo, be chasing ourselves,   
single-mindedly, in a circle. One wonders how we would  know? My answer   
to questions like this has consistently been: "We must define   
economics." More specifically, we must define the goal that economists   
aim to achieve. Absent this, we shall never be certain that we are   
chasing something that really exists and that our chasing has some   
meaning to anyone but ourselves (in this case to our "profession"). We   
shall never be able to definitively judge what our history is about. And   
we shall forever be slaves to authority. Or else free to pursue our   
every whim.  
  
I was tempted to write a message about the concept of equilibrium in   
light of the subjective value revolution of the 19th century. But I   
persuaded myself that list members, being unwilling to discuss what is   
or ought to be the goal of economics, would regard this as "whig   
history."  Not politically correct, thought I.  
  
http://www.ishipress.com/sambo.htm  
  
Pat Gunning