================= HES POSTING ================= We shouldn't loose track of the fact that history of economic thought does sometimes get read -- and is persuasive to all sorts of economists. Two examples come readily to mind (there are, of course, others) -- Kevin Hoover's _The New Classical Macroeconomics_ and Don Lavoie's _Rivalry and Central Planning_. Both books do get read and have indeed changed opinions about central topics in economic theories in ways that centrally depend on history of economic thought perspectives. The impact is perhaps not the same as, say, Stiglerian or Schumpeterian histories of two or three generations ago, but then the efforts of Stigler and Schumpeter were very different from those of Hoover and Lavoie. Greg Ransom Dept. of Philosophy UC-Riverside [log in to unmask] http://members.gnn.com/logosapien/ransom.htm ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]