Hi, I have been wanting to comment on the issue that economics as a theory of choice is narrow. This issue was raised by at least two contributors, including Frederic Lee. I finally am in a more permanent location where I can do this. There is no doubt that many people who call themselves economists and who are in the profession, as it were, would regard themselves as outside of a group that defined itself exclusively as students of choice and who called economics a theory or logic of choice. Recall that by this I mean people who interpret behavior and its manifestations, such as GDP numbers, by building images or models of the choices that cause (or that can be inferred to cause) such behavior or manifestations. Such "theory-of-choicers," as I define them, do not deny that constraints on choice come from all sorts of places, but they insist that when one describes behavior and its manifestations solely in terms of these constraints and disregard the choosing character of people who behave, one is outside the realm of economics. I have two questions about those who call themselves economists but who would regard themselves outside the group of "theory of choicers." The first is whether such people really do study ONLY non-choice behavior and its manifestations. I am not aware of any who do. So perhaps someone would give an example. The second is whether, if such people do exist, they regard the study of constraints as part of economics. I am not writing here about the words people use. It seems to me that many people who use the word economics to refer to only the study of what I have called constraints on choice are merely trying to advertise the particular constraints they are studying and not to present an alternative to economics as a theory of choice. Others are advertising their desire to see "theory-of-choicers" study the causes of choice itself. If this is wrong, I'd like somebody to give me an example. It seems to me that the term "heterodox economics" does not accurately capture any of the ideas I am expressing here, since it presumably refers to everything that it is not mainstream economics. In fact, to speak of heterodox economics, it seems to me, is to drop out of the discussion entirely. Pat Gunning,