===================== HES POSTING ==================== 
 
Oh dear. My fairly light comment on an ongoing discussion has drawn a  
massive reproof from Michael Williams. I overstated. I am sorry. I  
wanted to argue that not all criticisms are of equal weight, and that  
assembling names from a period of decades doesn't prove much. That's  
all. 
 
What I do want to repeat, because I think it is true, is that 25 years  
ago or so there was real dissatisfaction from people at the peak of  
their careers, who were very widely listened to. There was a real  
malaise. I don't think that is true now. The change is a significant  
historical phenomenon. Then, macro was falling to bits (monetarists v  
Keynesians) and significant prestige attached to a very sterile form of  
GE theory. Now, information economics and the like plus empirical work  
with large datasets is giving economists lots of interesting work to do  
(note - I didn't pass judgement on its merits, just that it is fun to  
do). 
 
Tony Brewer ([log in to unmask]) 
University of Bristol, Department of Economics 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]