[log in to unmask] wrote:

>It was with much amusement that I read Michael Ambrosi's comments.
>Amusement because I remain puzzled as to why some historians of economic
>thought can't seem to shed their Keynesian beliefs in the face of
>analysis clearly contradicting them.

Many apologies for straying rather, but perhaps others might also find the
below an amusing approach to the general problem cited here?

Rob Tye

(From:  ARGUMENT, PERSUASION, AND ANECDOTE: The Usefulness of History to
Understanding Conflict  (James J. Sadkovich))

(Sadkovich is a historian specialsing in the Bosnian conflict)

I would like to begin by quoting Bill James, who has challenged the way we
think about baseball, a game of intuition and individual effort whose fans
and managers are obsessed with team performance and statistical analysis.
"When I was young and naive," he recently told Tyler Kepner "I assumed that
when you demonstrated that something was false, everybody would say, 'Oh, I
didn't know that,' and stop doing what it was that had been demonstrated as
being useless or counterproductive. "Of course," he continued, "the world
doesn't work like that."