Reply to White

Robert Ekelund

Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 1998, vol. 20, issue 3, 375-378

Abstract: Some might argue that William T. Thornton, whatever his ultimate place in social history, has received far too much attention from economists. Yet, I welcome Michael White's comments on a recent paper of mine (1997) and even note that, in a small way, his earlier comments on my paper written with Sven Thommesen (1989) led me to reread Thornton's writings in depth. Nevertheless, and after augmented reflection, White's comments do not cause me to alter any of my arguments concerning Thornton's worth as an economic theorist. Indeed, rereading Thornton in light of White's comments strengthens my belief that his analysis was as flawed as I initially thought it to be. While Thornton's critique of supply and demand (read “of economic analysis”) and others like it raise issues far broader and of more critical moment than those suggested by White, I confine my remarks to the issues he raises in his comment on my most recent paper.

Date: 1998
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cup:jhisec:v:20:y:1998:i:03:p:375-378_00

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of the History of Economic Thought from Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kirk Stebbing ().