John C.Medaille wrote:
> E. Roy Weintraub wrote:
>> Remind me again what such uninformed essentialist proclamations about
>> the true nature of physics, and the true nature of economics, have to
>> do with the History of Economics?
>
>
> "Uniformed" is easy to say, but if you have a theory of physics in
> which the fall of rocks, feathers, and 747s are unaffected by air
> pressure, I would like to hear it.
>
> However, you are correct in asking about the connection with History,
> since I foolishly cut out the post I was responding to. It was Doug
> Mackensie's post in which he noted that "Adopting the term
> open trade does nothing if the idea of Walrasian
> competitive equilibrium remains as the central concept
> in modern economic theory. Institutional factors will
> be downplayed or ignored for as long as economists
> continue to think of the Walrasian pure exchange model
> as 'high theory'. Economists who think in terms of
> pure exchange will end up with a mistaken notion of
> efficient trade no matter how it is termed, so long as
> they are educated in Walrasian terms. "
>
> Sorry for the confusion.
>
>
> John C. Medaille
Employing the phrase "Walrasian equilibrium" no more makes a posting
relevant to history of economics than does muttering "duck" make a post
relevant to ornithology.
E. Roy Weintraub