caa a22 4500 388040696 CHVBK 20180307125020.0 cr unu---uuuuu 161130e199809 xx s 000 0 eng 10.1017/S1053837200002194 doi S1053837200002194 pii (NATIONALLICENCE)cambridge-10.1017/S1053837200002194 Ekelund Robert B. Reply to White [Elektronische Daten] [Robert B. Ekelund] 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. Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998 Journal of the History of Economic Thought Cambridge University Press 20/3(1998-09), 375-378 1053-8372 20:3<375 1998 20 HET https://doi.org/10.1017/S1053837200002194 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI 1 research-article jats NATIONALLICENCE 856 40 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1053837200002194 text/html Onlinezugriff via DOI NATIONALLICENCE 100 1- Ekelund Robert B. NATIONALLICENCE 773 0- Journal of the History of Economic Thought Cambridge University Press 20/3(1998-09), 375-378 1053-8372 20:3<375 1998 20 HET CC0 http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0 nationallicence BK010053 XK010053 XK010000 NATIONALLICENCE NATIONALLICENCE NL-cambridge