Dear Everyone,

Now that we've changed the message line, I wanted to thank everyone 
who sent in information both privately and through SHOE about the 
descriptions for the calendar.  It was extraordinarily helpful. The 
group is a wonderful asset.  The collective knowledge of the group is 
amazing. I very much appreciate it.

Given that it was so helpful, and given that everyone seemed to enjoy 
the discussion, I might also ask the group to review another aspect 
of the calendar.

Specifically, the calendar will have a few quotations from each 
economist selected.  For a number of economists on the calendar we 
have simply picked up what Stigler used, but for new ones (we changed 
some, and added six because we are making it an 18 month calendar) we 
had to find some quotations. If the list organizer finds my question 
acceptable, I will be sending these selections and ask the group is 
they have any "better" selections, or whether I have really chosen 
the wrong quotation.

Obviously, in choosing quotations, there is an enormous set of 
material to choose from, and enormous subjectivity, so I am a bit 
hesitant to put my selections out to the group, and thereby expose 
myself to the collective scorn of the group. But since everyone was 
so helpful and charitable to me in the earlier discussion, I thought 
I'd try it. In any case, it should start some good discussions about 
specific economists.

To separate the discussions for me, I will send each economist's 
quotations out with a separate subject line. That way I can organize 
them and make final decisions about quotations when all the 
suggestions (if there are any) are in.

A few ground rules for the discussion:

	1. Space is limited, so please accompany any suggested quotation 
with a suggestion of which quotation to cut.

	2. The new quotation can be no longer than the cut quotation.
	
	3. Please give the source for any quotation you give--I will have to 
get permissions for each.

	Again, many thanks, and I hope that this generates as much good 
discussion as the previous did.

Dave Colander


To start the process, I am including the quotations I selected for Richard Ely:

Richard Ely

Some of the younger men not present at the founding of our 
Association have regarded the controversy about inductive and 
deductive method as a barren and fruitless one. It is because they 
did not understand the situation at that time. There was opposition 
to historical, statistical study as an essential means of discovering 
economic truth, and emphasis was laid upon the so-called historical 
method because at that time it was necessary. Here and there it may 
be undue emphasis was laid upon this, because, as Adam Smith says, 
"when the twig is bent too much in one direction it is necessary to 
bend it in the other to make it straight." It is only those who fail 
to realize the situation at that time-so hard to understand at the 
present-who can regard as futile and meaningless the controversy 
regarding induction and deduction, statistical and historical method. 
(65, American Economic Association Quarterly, 3rd Series, Vol. 11, 
No. 1, Papers and Discussions of the Twenty-Second Annual Meeting: 
Being the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the Founding of the 
Association. New York City. December 27-31, 1909 (Apr., 1910), pp. 47-111)

The students of elementary economics should have presented to them a 
clear-cut, well-defined system of thought. This should in one way be 
taught dogmatically, in another sense not. Let me explain my paradox. 
In elementary teaching a certain element of dogmatism is 
pedagogically necessary. In the case of economics the dogmatism 
consists in learning the author who is being studied and confining 
attention first of all to his thought. The teacher should, however, 
say frankly, "there are other authors just as able as our author, 
perhaps a good deal abler, who looks at things differently. The last 
word has not by any means been said upon any of the important 
theoretical and practical subjects in economics; but, as a basis for 
further work, we will endeavor to understand this one writer." (438, 
Suggestions to Teachers of General Economics The Journal of Political 
Economy, Vol. 18, No. 6 (Jun., 1910), pp. 437-440)