==================== HES POSTING ==================== 
 
Brad: 
 
Bingo. 
 
But why is your point so resisted by economists?  It seems to me (as an 
pseudo outsider) that economists seem more interested in being like 
physicists than, say biologists.  That is, they want to believe that what 
they are studying has ALWAYS been there, and it is just a question of 
finding the right method/theory.  If one looks at biology, one gets a 
different image of knowledge.  If you ask why most male human beings are 
larger than most female human beings, the immediate explanation is genetic 
and hormonal makeup.  But if you ask how that genetic and hormonal make up 
came about, the explanation lies in evolution (i.e. history).  It seems to 
me that economics could use more history.  Unfortunately, from what I am 
able to gleen from this forum, they consider that problematic, and when 
they do approach history, it is rife with a contextual clumsiness that is 
almost embarassing (this is getting harsher than I prefer). 
 
Michael Gibbons 
Dept. of Government and International Affairs 
University of South Florida 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]