Michael Perelman says we shouldn't be surprised that Stiglitz was surprised (at how Ricardo & Smith anticipated him & Weiss). I suppose, but Stiglitz has a reputation as one of the leading "theorists" of the trade. I can almost understand how some practical economist might not have the time to trouble him- or herself with intellectual history, but shouldn't a "theorist"? Shouldn't a "theorist" also be familiar with, say, sociology, politics, psychology, and history? I'm beginning to think Jim O'Connor wasn't exaggerating when he said that economics is a criminal enterprise. Doug ______________________ Sorry, I ment to be responding to Jim, but pressed the wrong button and can't get out of it. So here it goes, why should a "theorist" be expected to be a "supper wo/man", when he/she is paid the same money? Cheers, ajit sinha
