===================== HES POSTING ==================== In responding to Greg Ransom, Roy Weintraub wrote in part: A less paranoid, or conspiritorial, view of the matter would argue that someone like Arrow, engaged in his own projects, constructing his own linkages among ideas, allies, theories, data, tools, concepts -- deploying his own troops in Latour-Callon networks -- understands Hayek only though his own Arrow-world, one he projects as it were onto Hayek. For Arrow is not an historian, obligated to understand another's views from the inside: he is an economist, a kind of scientist, obligated to make sense of his world with tools brought along and remade, and ideas learned and reforged. Bruce Caldwell adds his two cents: I think that Roy has accurately described what people like Arrow have done with Hayek's work. What is fascinating to me, both as a Hayek scholar and as an historian, is how many economists acknowledge the influence of Hayek (Greg's point), while at the same time it is evident that their work (seemingly systematically) deviates from his central insights. This happened time and again. They never really understood what Hayek was about. It makes for an interesting puzzle, and an interesting story. ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]