Letters to the Editor
Resource for Pete Boettke, Why Read the Classics in Economics?
Letters to the Editor
February 24, 2000 To the Editor:
I am in agreement with the substance and spirit of Professor Boettke’s essay (“Why Read
There is, however, an additional question that I would like to see addressed. What is to
One minor quibble with Professor Boettke’s essay: compared to most of the current
Congratulations to the Library of Economics and Liberty for a great web site and a nice Mathew Forstater |
February 26, 2000 From the Editor: I’m going to take off my Editor’s hat for a moment here because Boettke’s clear summary of the issues inspired me. I think it is entirely consistent with even the strongest version of an efficient market for ideas to argue that over the course of time, and certainly over the course of a century or more, technology and understanding improve so greatly that what may have been completely inefficient to explore at the time a work is written may in fact become feasible and efficient a century later. It seems perfectly possible that a rereading of an older work could uncover such “lost” ideas. The ideas were not lost in any sense of being overlooked at the time, but were simply not pursued or incorporated into the growing body of received economics because they were infeasible to pursue given the technology and state of knowledge at the time the work was written. That fine thinkers and authors do have ideas that are ahead of their times is well known: DaVinci certainly sketched inventions that were entirely impossible during his era. There is no doubt that our knowledge of mathematics, of evidence, plus what has become technologically and politically feasible since the days of Adam Smith has increased radically. A new look at great classics could uncover ideas that were put forth by the authors but not explored further during their era or sinceideas that have perhaps become “lost” precisely because the market for information is efficient and uses available information and technology, without wantonly wasting resources on pie in the sky. That said, I have to admit that when I read the works of older economists, I am not struck by vast numbers of such intriguing ideas that can now be explored but that somehow got “lost” in this manner. So, I would argue that though what I am describing is both feasible and consistent with even the most extreme “Whig” theory, the empirical evidence does not argue strongly that the older works constitute a prime unplumbed ground for new young economists to find exciting topics. Such ideas may well be there, but it is clear that there are not dozens of unexploited profit opportunities for a graduate student seeking inspiration for a thesis. It’s always hard work to find a worthy idea, however; and the fact that unexplored great ideas do not always leap off the pages does not mean that the fresh eyes of an eager reader might not be inspired by something said between the lines in one of the fine classics of economics. Lauren F. Landsburg |
February 27, 2000 To the Editor:
As is typically the case with his ruminations, Pete Boettke’s
This is a powerful case for reading economic classics. It
A justification, complementary to Pete’s, for reading
Consider just one example: the theory of perfect competition.
If it is the first (the result of an attempt to describe
And, perhaps, the origins of the theory of perfect
Whatever is the case, the general point is that understanding Don J. Boudreaux |
March 1, 2000 To the Editor:
Pete Boettke has the ability to raise very interesting and stimulating
My major point of interest, though, is not this, but the argument that
Today instead we decompose human behavior in its various components, and
Reading the classics may be a luxury, but it is a phenomenally useful Maria Pia Paganelli |