----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
I am impressed that no one has stressed the importance of HET to someone becoming an
economist. Someone said that an economist needs to be trained in the same basic (core)
tools (possibly macro, micro, math and econometrics). In this view, HET is not so
relevant. Perelman answered this claim asking about the ability to understand how economic
theory develops itself.
 
I agree with him, but I think we need to radicalize this presumption. I mean that it is
not simply a question of understanding "how economic theory updates itself," but that
there is no other way than knowing how economics updates itself for an economist be
critical about the present theory. If an economist does not know the evolution of his
science, especially how controversies were solved, he can not be sure about how he will
choose theory and what are the full consequences of his choice.
 
So, just like someone said an economist can't be an economist if he doesn't know that
core, we can state nobody can be one if he doesn't know HET. I am not saying that someone
can be an economist if he doesn't know that core,
but rather that only that is not enough. 
 
Best regards, 
 
Manoel Galdino 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]