================= HES POSTING =================
We shouldn't loose track of the fact that history of economic thought does
sometimes get read -- and is persuasive to all sorts of economists. Two
examples come readily to mind (there are, of course, others) -- Kevin
Hoover's _The New Classical Macroeconomics_ and Don Lavoie's _Rivalry and
Central Planning_. Both books do get read and have indeed changed opinions
about central topics in economic theories in ways that centrally depend on
history of economic thought perspectives. The impact is perhaps not the
same as, say, Stiglerian or Schumpeterian histories of two or three
generations ago, but then the efforts of Stigler and Schumpeter were very
different from those of Hoover and Lavoie.
Greg Ransom
Dept. of Philosophy
UC-Riverside
[log in to unmask]http://members.gnn.com/logosapien/ransom.htm
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]