<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Corporate Engagement &#187; economic history</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.crikey.com.au/trevorcook/tag/economic-history/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.crikey.com.au/trevorcook</link>
	<description>Trevor Cook on public relations, social media and politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 04:58:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Economic theory vs. economic history</title>
		<link>http://blogs.crikey.com.au/trevorcook/2009/10/10/economic-theory-vs-economic-history/</link>
		<comments>http://blogs.crikey.com.au/trevorcook/2009/10/10/economic-theory-vs-economic-history/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 20:04:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Trevor Cook</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business & economics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.crikey.com.au/trevorcook/?p=6093</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A passionate argument for re-integration (and a longer version here):
This is not to say that the macroeconomic model-building of the past generation has been pointless. But I do think that modern macroeconomists need to be rounded up, on pain of loss of tenure, and sent to a year-long boot camp with the assembled monetary historians [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A <a href="http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/features/sunday/10/04/the-anti-history-boys/">passionate argument for re-integration</a> (and a <a href="http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2009/10/the-antihistory-boys.html">longer version here</a>):</p>
<blockquote><p>This is not to say that the macroeconomic model-building of the past generation has been pointless. But I do think that modern macroeconomists need to be rounded up, on pain of loss of tenure, and sent to a year-long boot camp with the assembled monetary historians of the world as their drill sergeants. They need to listen to and learn from Dick Sylla about Alexander Hamilton’s bank rescue of 1825; from Charlie Calomiris about the Overend, Gurney crisis; from Michael Bordo about the first bankruptcy of Baring brothers; and from Barry Eichengreen, Christy Romer, and Ben Bernanke about the Great Depression.</p>
<p>If modern macroeconomists do not reconnect with history – if they do not realize just what their theories are crystallized out of and what the point of the enterprise is – then their profession will wither and die.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://blogs.crikey.com.au/trevorcook/2009/10/10/economic-theory-vs-economic-history/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
