First the subject matter of economics is essentially a unique process in historic time. Nobody can hope to understand the economic phenomena of any epoch, including the present, who has not an adequate command of historical facts and an adequate amount of historical sense or of what may be described as historical experience. Third, it is, I believe, the fact that most of the fundamental errors currently committed in economic analysis are due to a lack of historical experience more often than to any other shortcoming of the economist's equipment. Two ominous consequences of the argument above should be noticed at once. Second, we have to face the fact that, economic history being part of economics, the historian's techniques are passengers in the big bus that we call economic analysis.
Derivative knowledge is always unsatisfactory.
Hence, even economists who are not economic historians themselves and who merely read the historical reports written by others must understand how these reports came into being or else they will not be able to appraise the real meaning. We shall not be able to live up to the program that follows from this.