John C.Medaille wrote: > E. Roy Weintraub wrote: >> Remind me again what such uninformed essentialist proclamations about >> the true nature of physics, and the true nature of economics, have to >> do with the History of Economics? > > > "Uniformed" is easy to say, but if you have a theory of physics in > which the fall of rocks, feathers, and 747s are unaffected by air > pressure, I would like to hear it. > > However, you are correct in asking about the connection with History, > since I foolishly cut out the post I was responding to. It was Doug > Mackensie's post in which he noted that "Adopting the term > open trade does nothing if the idea of Walrasian > competitive equilibrium remains as the central concept > in modern economic theory. Institutional factors will > be downplayed or ignored for as long as economists > continue to think of the Walrasian pure exchange model > as 'high theory'. Economists who think in terms of > pure exchange will end up with a mistaken notion of > efficient trade no matter how it is termed, so long as > they are educated in Walrasian terms. " > > Sorry for the confusion. > > > John C. Medaille Employing the phrase "Walrasian equilibrium" no more makes a posting relevant to history of economics than does muttering "duck" make a post relevant to ornithology. E. Roy Weintraub