----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
I am following this ongoing debate over who was the greatest, and  
it's interesting to see the various opinions and arguments made  
concerning this economist or that one.   
 
But I feel that this whole debate overvalues the importance of  
individuals and ignores the collective nature of economics, as of  
other natures. Einstein was undoubtedly a genius, but the reason  
he became such a cult figure is not only the result of this. It has  
something to do with our mass culture and with our individualistic  
disposition.  Einstein's work contributed to science because it was  
part of a huge project, in which dozens of people took place and  
made contributions.   
 
And if this is the case with Einstein, it is even more so with  
economists. I don't want to argue that Smith, Marshall, Marx,  
Keynes, and a score of others (Ricardo, Malthus, Samuelson,  
Arrow, Mitchell, Veblen, Weber, Friedman, Menger, Schumpeter,  
Pigou, and I can go on and on) did not make special contributions,  
or synthesized/formalized various principles in better ways. But  
their impact and influence is also related to their better "public  
relations" or to their more fortunate social location, ties, and  
resources. The example of Ibn Khaldun is just a conspicuous  
example, but there must be under-valued and ignored talented  
economists even in Western culture.   
 
In any case, why are we so fascinated with this ranking project?  
What good does it make to rank the 10 best novelists, composers,  
inventions, or economists?  in my opinion it is not a productive  
pursuit at all.   
 
Yuval Yonay 
University of Haifa 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]