I sent it last week, but somehow it never showed up. It's minor and a bit late. but so what? >At 21:54 3/06/98 -0400, Mat Forstater wrote: >>But, here was what really discouraged me: the story I have is that when >>NYU recently eliminated its history of thought grad requirement (it may >>have been a choice between history of thought and economic history), >>Baumol--who I would have really expected to have been on the right >>side--was not. I don't think Leontief was of any help either. The >>Austrians were the ones who tried to save it--unsuccessfully. >> >>Why was it eliminated: needed more time for more econometrics. >> >>Mat Forstater >________ > >Mat, some years ago (I think it was 1991 or 1992) *Economic Journal* published its centenary issue on the topic of 'next hundered years of economics'. Most of the big shots were there with their opinion. One positive thing about it was that most of the people agreed (including Baumol, I think) that Economics has over done mathematics and future of economics will see a decline in use of mathematics and rise of sociological issues in economics. However, Baumol in his paper did come out against teaching of History of Economic Thought. So his position does not come as a surprise to me. I gather that University of Toronto is also getting rid of their comulsory course in History of Economic though for graduate students. Sam Hollander is taking a retirement, and ironically both Samuelson and Baumol are going to speak in the festivity in his honor. Cheers, ajit sinha >> >>
