In the 100th anniversary issue of _The Economic Journal_ James Buchanan writes: "If my central prediction [that the post-socialist century will be marked by a convergence of scientific understanding] economists must, increasingly, begin to raise -- and try to answer the following set of questions [including, first of all]: Why did economists share in the 'fatal conceit' (Hayek, 1989) that socialism represented?" Buchanan adds: "These and similar questions will occupy many man-years of effort in the century ahead. In the examination of the flaws of economics over the socialist century, the perspective of the discipline itself will be challenged and perhaps changed in a dramatic fashion." Question: How does Buchanan's comment relate to our ongoing conversation about how to do 'good' economic history? Is this a project 'internal' to economics, or 'external' to it? Does this sort of question even make a distinction with any traction in the case at hand? Is Buchanan's research project for folks outside of the guild of the professional economist and his modern institutions, or is it one that the academically trained economist can help us with? Perhaps a research project better undertaken by sociologists, philosophers, historians, and political scientists? Can it be done without the contemporary academic economist? Should it be undertaken? -- Does this question itself lie inside or outside of economics? Greg Ransom Dept. of Philosophy UC-Riverside [log in to unmask] http://members.aol.com/gregransom/hayekpage.htm