Talk:History of economic thought/Draft: Difference between revisions
imported>Martin Baldwin-Edwards (archived Talk) |
imported>Richard Jensen (→Chicago school: new section) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
[[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 10:32, 23 October 2007 (CDT) | [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 10:32, 23 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) | |||
Revision as of 06:42, 24 October 2007
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)
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)