[Wonder Warthog]

"Warthog, I wonder if you consider the age of a work to be the defining characteristic of its value. Works like "The Wealth of Nations" and "The Fall and Decline of the Roman Empire" are far older that the book I suggested you read. Would you discount them solely because of their age?"

When new validated research shows the older position to be erroneous, then yes. I'm sure that "The Wealth of Nations" doesn't tell the whole story of economics, nor "The Decline and Fall (NOT "Fall and Decline") of the Roman Empire" tell the whole story of the Roman Empire.

[jas3]

When new validated research shows the older position to be erroneous, then yes. I'm sure that "The Wealth of Nations" doesn't tell the whole story of economics, nor "The Decline and Fall (NOT "Fall and Decline") of the Roman Empire" tell the whole story of the Roman Empire

So what new research do you claim has shown the book which you have not read to be erroneous, and what do you claim has validated that research? So far you've got thirty pages from a book that came out this year.

Of course "The Wealth of Nations" does not pretend to be a comprehensive treatise on economics. Nor does the "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" (thanks your your correction) pose as a complete history.

So by your definition, neither of these works are worth reading?

jas3