Talk:History of economic thought/Draft

Additions and Redrafts

My main purpose so far has been to outline as briefly as possible the contributions of Adam Smith, and to give due credit to Hume and the Physiocrats. Perhaps I have been too terse in my treatment of Smith? But note that I have created a link to what I consider to be a muchc-needed article devoted exclusively to The Wealth of Nations.

Nick Gardner 09:42, 19 October 2007 (CDT)

I have searched in vain for a significant contribution to economic thought by Engels or Kautsky, so I have deleted the references to them.

Nick Gardner 10:32, 23 October 2007 (CDT)

I plan to add a section on growth economics but much of the work has been published after my retirement and it seems mostly to be abstract and very mathematical. I will try to brief myself and return to it. Also, I realise that something has to be done to clarify and update the rambling section on institutional economics. And, I suppose, something has to be said about mechanism design theory. If the Nobel Prize Committee think it important, then I suppose it must be. Can anyone help?

If nobody objects, I propose to delete the apallingly inaccurate section on "The Monetarist counterrevolution"

Nick Gardner 05:46, 28 October 2007 (CDT)

Chicago school

The Chicago school is probably the single most important source of economic thought in recent decades, as proven by all those Nobel prizes (and reaffirmed by obits of Friedman this year). It's impossible to omit--we had it covered in two sections (monetarism and micro). 07:42, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

I do not intend to omit it, but I think that it deserves a less cursory treatment, so I intend to replace the existing test with an entry that will (I hope) do it justice. Nick Gardner 11:41, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

Please don't delete work without talking it over first. CZ has strict rules about that. Richard Jensen 23:14, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

I understand Nick to mean that he will ADD to the content, but perhaps he means something more complex. If there is any doubt, Nick, just paste the proposed new text here for approval. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 23:18, 24 October 2007 (CDT)

I would not really worry about losing anything to what someone adds. Everything is there in the history. Stephen Ewen 04:15, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

I'm sorry: I have not made myself clear. I propose to give due weight to the contributions of members of the Chicago School, including Friedman, Coase and Stigler, (noting their membership of the School in each case) at various points in the sections on the neoclassicals and the monetarists (and I have been wondering whether to do a "New Classical" paragraph, giving them yet more weight). I shall not delete a word of the existing paragraph about the Chicago School until all of that is done, and I shall then invite views as to whether that paragraph is worth retaining. Nick Gardner 09:57, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

i suggest that the Chicago School is so cohesive and so important it needs it own section in any case. Richard Jensen 12:35, 25 October 2007 (CDT)

I have not quite finished writing about the Chicago School, but the remaing section on policy implications will not be concerned with its members' contributions, only their impact. So there is now enough material to inform a decision about it. I still feel that the existing section on the School should be deleted on the ground that its cursory treatment belittles the School's acheivements , but if it is felt that it should be preserved, I will try to build it into a concluding section. Please let me have your views. Nick Gardner 16:59, 27 October 2007 (CDT)