I suppose that I do believe some of the things that Warren Samuels attributes 
to me. But his view of the dispute, if there indeed is one, is quite different 
from mine.  I am not sure what Sent believes, if she is the author of the entire
message.

Warren claims that Sent?s view is about an economy and that the economy means 
?markets.?  As Samuels sees it, she believes ?that beliefs arguably false, 
fictional and/or selectively (and either consciously or inadvertently) applied 
help economic agents get the kind of markets/economies they want in a process of 
competition in which the object is to control markets by controlling policy by 
controlling government.?

He goes on to say that I have in mind pretty much the same economy but that I 
have an agenda of persuasion relating to making the economy better in some way.

I had no such agenda in mind when I wrote my cryptic comment. My interest is in 
the history of economics, which I define as the study of the market economy ? 
interaction under the conditions of private property rights, free enterprise and 
the use of money. The Sent announcement seems to also reflect an interest in the 
history of economics, albeit without a strict (or should I say clear) definition 
of the subject. My point is that one cannot study economics ? as I defined it ? 
without regarding the invisible hand, comparative advantage, the quantity theory 
of money, and demand and supply as the focal points.

My interpretation of her announcement, which I will be happy to defend, is that 
these concepts need not be the focal points.

Pat Gunning