I wasn't asking as a productivity question it was more wouldn't they want to read the history of thought leading to what they're doing just out of sheer curiosity?
Definitely, and I'm sure many do. And it is often very surprising how far ahead the older authors had thought. But while such reading is fun as a leisure activity, doing it seriously requires full-time dedication as a historian of thought because often even if the words are intelligible the concepts have drifted so much that they can be understood only by studying not only the famous works but their entire intellectual milieu. For example, to someone trained in contemporary economics even Keynes' 'General Theory' written in 1936 is very hard to make detailed sense of. So as a practical matter it comes down to a choice of studying either economics or the history of economics.
BTW, i get what you mean on detailed sense. I would imagine most economists know Keynes well enough yet have never cracked open General Theory. I'm an interested layman and god knows I wouldn't try to read it any more than I'd read Hegel right now if i wanted a deeper understanding of Marx. Hey, there're only so many hours in a day.
Yes, I agree a philosophy scholar would do that but what about economists? And is it leisure for economists to read even a few of the classics or is it work related? It could be both I suppose or maybe anything's leisure that doesn't move the ball forward on the current project they're working on. Fair enough if that's the case.
BTW, is a quant a practitioner of applied economics? I do know the trading related work they do at least the popular perception of of the work they do.
So classical liberal is where it's at foundation wise for the field of economics? In case it's not obvious I have limited knowledge of Econ. My formal training in economics consists of Intro to Micro, Intro to Macro, and a course in Political Economy.
