Roy Weintraub wrote:
>I'm confused. What does this have to do with the 
>history of economics? Why would an historian of 
>science care about which kind of reserve requirement is "best?

Possibly because there is no way to look at 
history except through the lens of some theory? 
There is not a free-floating "objective" history 
"out there," but only particular accounts that 
involve some particular interpretive stance? 
Perhaps because in order to interpret the events 
of 1929--or of 2009--one has to have some 
conceptual framework? How can one pronounce on 
how a system--say a monetary system--did work 
without some idea of how it ought to work?

John C. Médaille