==================== HES POSTING ==================== Brad: Bingo. But why is your point so resisted by economists? It seems to me (as an pseudo outsider) that economists seem more interested in being like physicists than, say biologists. That is, they want to believe that what they are studying has ALWAYS been there, and it is just a question of finding the right method/theory. If one looks at biology, one gets a different image of knowledge. If you ask why most male human beings are larger than most female human beings, the immediate explanation is genetic and hormonal makeup. But if you ask how that genetic and hormonal make up came about, the explanation lies in evolution (i.e. history). It seems to me that economics could use more history. Unfortunately, from what I am able to gleen from this forum, they consider that problematic, and when they do approach history, it is rife with a contextual clumsiness that is almost embarassing (this is getting harsher than I prefer). Michael Gibbons Dept. of Government and International Affairs University of South Florida ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]