====================== HES POSTING ====================== 
 
Robin Foliet Neill wrote: 
 
> With respect to the discussion of Whig interpretations of the 
> history of economics:  the history of economics is history, 
> not economics... 
 
I find the idea that the history of economics is not 
economics misleading rhetoric. There are two separate 
reasons. 
 
First, how can one do the history of economics without 
understanding or defining economics? Surely, one could 
not do the history of science without understanding or 
defining science. 
 
Second, although history is not economics, even history 
cannot be done without THEORY. And economic theory, 
properly understood, is a part of the more general theory 
that one needs to do history. The clearest statement on 
this point is that of Ludwig von Mises in his THEORY AND 
HISTORY. In my view this is the first book an aspiring 
historian should read. 
 
-- 
 
Pat Gunning 
http://stsvr.showtower.com.tw/~gunning/welcome 
http://web.nchulc.edu.tw/~gunning/pat/welcome 
 
==================== FOOTER TO HES POSTING ==================== 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]