================= 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]