===================== HES POSTING ==================== 
 
In responding to Greg Ransom, Roy Weintraub wrote in part: 
 
A less paranoid, or conspiritorial, view of the matter would argue  
that someone like Arrow, engaged in his own projects, constructing  
his own linkages among ideas, allies, theories, data, tools,   
concepts -- deploying his own troops in Latour-Callon  networks --  
understands Hayek only though his own Arrow-world, one he projects as  
it were onto Hayek. For Arrow is not an historian, obligated to  
understand another's views from the inside: he is an economist, a  
kind of scientist, obligated to make sense of his world with tools  
brought along and remade, and ideas learned and reforged.  
 
Bruce Caldwell adds his two cents: 
 I think that Roy has accurately described what people like Arrow  
have done with Hayek's work. What is fascinating to me, both as a  
Hayek scholar and as an historian, is how many economists acknowledge  
the influence of Hayek (Greg's point), while at the same time it  
is evident that their work (seemingly systematically) deviates from  
his central insights. This happened time and again. They never  
really understood what Hayek was about. It makes for an interesting  
puzzle, and an interesting story.  
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]