Yes, indeed I was informed recently that I recieved an A- instead of an A in one of my PhD courses because I include too much historical content in my exam answers. I suppose there's no better way to protect faulty theory than to ignore the lessons of economic history.
In a message dated 1/9/03 7:00:41 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Fred Foldvary a *crit : > > one is a > better economist if one knows some law, history, geography, literature, > political science, and philosophy. And besides his specialty, a good > economist should know some history of thought, economic history, and > something about the various schools of thought besides his own. True, but what do students in economics study all that? Too much maths usually divert students from all these topics : they just don't need all these to pass their exams. begin:vcard n:Girard;Bernard >>
