Why does the past matter? the general equilibrium case

Everything is related

Many of us who teach or do research in the History of Economic Thought (HET) have long felt that the economics profession undervalues our specialization, and we have struggled to make the case in support of it. The argument, as I've heard it, is sometimes cast in terms of externalities, other things that come along as we study HET:  unlike more technical economics courses, ours is, we hold, a course in which students learn how to write. If universities value writing, we might use this argument to justify the HET course in the overall curriculum. So, one of the HES-sponsored sessions I approved for the 2005 Allied Social Science Association meeting was "A Roundtable Discussion About Using Writing Across the Curriculum in the History of Economics Course". It’s a good strategy, one that justifies the otherwise beleaguered HET course.

But this under-emphasizes a case that I have recently come to appreciate: all sorts of economists who know the past have a better understanding of the present. I’ve always said that to myself – it’s a way to get through the day when you teach the history of ideas in an unsympathetic world! But it’s only recently that I’ve come fully to appreciate the general equilibrium point: If ideas, like markets, are interrelated, then what we don’t read has implications for our understanding (or lack of) of what we do read. Sometimes, the gap in understanding will be small and unimportant. When it comes to understanding the opposition to economics, this is probably not a safe assumption. If we are ever to engage that opposition in serious discussion – to convince our reading public that, for instance, free trade is not such a bad thing – we need fully to appreciate the origin, influence, and longevity of old ideas and debates. So if we don’t know that at least some progressives favoured eugenic restrictions on immigration, we may misunderstand their policy recommendation that "charity begins at home". We may think this is a statement in favour of charity (for those at home) when in fact it may be a statement about who should not receive charity and why not. We may also think that economics has been attacked – today and in the past – by the left, by those who wish to see more (not less) equality. And not by those on the right, who wish to see less (not more) equality. We’d be wrong to omit the latter group, and future posts will give evidence as to why.

That everything is related – the present is misunderstood if there is a gap in knowledge of the past – is a telling argument for teaching and studying the past of economics within economics as well as without. I don’t mean, by this, to argue that the HET should be taught only by economists: competition provides a useful corrective on historians of economic thought within and without economics. This underscores the Summer Institute for the Preservation of the History of Economics that has been held for the past 6 years at George Mason University. (More on the SI will follow in this blog! It’s one of the resources linked on the right..)

So, among other things, this is a blog to help fill in the interrelatednes, to help us identify and, perhaps, solve the problems that result because our knowledge of the past is incomplete.  It will of course focus often on the particular sets of problems that, with David Levy, I've spent a lot of time on recently. The origins of the dismal science will feature prominently (Levy-Peart Secret History)So will our forthcoming book, the Vanity of the Philosopher. I plan to post something here a couple of times a week.

I like pictures. So I’ll try to post an image that has something to do with what I’m writing, each time I post. The first one below – I posted it before I moved back home from VA and things went a bit nuts -- is one of my favourites. The context will become more clear as we move through some of my texts. For now, think of it as a picture of exchange. Of equality. Of interrelatedness. Perhaps of sympathy? It’s by the late nineteen century engineer and sometimes political economist, Fleeming Jenkin.(wikipedia )

Comments

[Kenneth R Gregg]

How the heck did I miss this essay of yours on "The Secret History..."? And I thought I found everything on the Econlib.org library that I liked! As I just mentioned on David Beito's comment on the Liberty & Power blog:

"This is quite an excellent essay on "The Secret History..." Been re-reading Abbe Raynal's "History of the Two Indies" (I'm going to put in a post on it later) which has some very pithy comments about different cultures and the sense of racism in the imperialist mind.

Raynal, Diderot and the German philosopher Kant had much to say in this matter which has disappeared. We should look to many on the Continent during the time of Smith as well." http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=67283&bheaders=1#67283

Keep up the good work!

Just a thought.
Just Ken

[john]

Sentimental and nostalgic. Great.n

[Vince]

You guys do a wonderful job! Keep up the good work!!!

[Rush]

Excellent web site I will be visiting often

[Anonyme]

Fascinating site and well worth the visit. I will be backa

[Anonyme]

I praise God for answering my prayers. God, you are so wonderful, majestic. Jesus Christ, I adore Your Sacred Heart.a

[Julia]

I praise God for answering my prayers. God, you are so wonderful, majestic. Jesus Christ, I adore Your Sacred Heart.s