Dear Prof Bostaph

I agree on the point you make here, oaths do not much constrain politicians.
 It has been argued from Plato to Collingwood that politicians have the
right and indeed the duty to lie.

But it is interesting to consider the question, why compare economists to
recent US presidents?  Why not say, Professors of Pure Mathematics?  For I
think only a satirist would suggest an oath of truthfulness even needful,
regarding Pure Maths.

Thus, where, on a line from Mathematics to Politics should History of
Economics place itself?  Certainly its closer to Politics than say Physics.
 But there seems to me to be a crucial watershed along that line.  It is at
the beginning point of the zone where the ends-justify-the-means, where the
facts are sacrificed for the sake of theoretical policies.  That is the
point where science stops, and politics start.

I can only speak at all knowledgeably about pre-modern monetary history, but
in that area riding rough shod over the facts is almost normal for writers
taking an economic perspective.  And a complacent indulgence to such
liberties is even more widespread.  Contrary to Steve Kates, regarding my
own field, I do not find it credible that these lapses are not, quite often,
in some sense wilful.

So, I stand ready to defend that conclusion, and to complain against it.

regards

Rob Tye

York, UK

personal web site:  http://www.earlyworldcoins.com