Pat Gunning wrote:
>Holy moley!!
>
>Out go the invisible hand comparative advantage, 
>demand and supply, and the quantity theory of 
>money. How can these perspectives on the history 
>of economics be adopted without destroying the 
>subject matter? Have these people gone bonkers?
>
>"The inquiry seeks to contribute not only to history of economics but
>also to economics - instead of an orthodox outlook that ignores the
>possibility of such cross-fertilization."
>
>Fat chance, it seems to me.

Pat, please explain. I can't quite see why any of 
the seven areas of research in Prof. Sent's 
posting would destroy the subject matter of 
economics, which you define as supply and demand, 
the quantity theory of money, etc. I don't 
off-hand see how these things would be 
compromised. True, economics would not be limited 
to supply/demand, etc., but then, economics 
should not limited to that. Economics is a social 
science, one that studies a certain class of 
relations between men. So I am at a loss to see 
how economic science is compromised by the study 
of political economy. The real question is, "Does 
economics become more scientific or less by treating it as a social science?"

John C. M?daille