Greg Ransom writes: >make that: > >Lowe + Sombart --> Leontief --> Solow --> Blinder I don't think so. Lowe was not really Leontief's teacher. And I think this may point to some of the pitfalls of this exercise. Are we talking about an individual's primary mentor or supervisor (again, Bortkiewicz was Leontief's supervisor, not Sombart), or just anybody they took a class with. If it is the latter, we could come up with all kinds of perverse links. Also, there are supervisors and there are *supervisors* (i.e. there is not always the same degree of influence or close mentoring across the board). And in some cases, there are other known influences (where, for whatever reason, the most influential person was not the person's actual teacher or supervisor, or a person's primary influence was a personal or political event (e.g. Great Depression, rise of Nazism). The most interesting geneologies in my view would be ones that have identifiable common themes. For example, I think Bortkiewicz (or Bortkiewicz + Kiel if one likes) -> Leontief -> Duchin is a lot more interesting to consider. I find the Leontief -> Solow move much weaker. I guess it may depend on what aspect of one's work one is interested in. ___________________________________ Mathew Forstater Department of Economics Gettysburg College Gettysburg, PA 17325 tel: (717) 337-6668 fax: (717) 337-6251 e-mail: [log in to unmask]