Which Economists Should I Teach In My Philosophy Class?

 
Marx

On the left: Marx

I teach the Modern to Contemporary Philosophy class at my university.  I have decided to add a new lesson next time: After we cover Marx, we’re going to survey some other economist-philosophers from Marx’ time and afterwards.

Smith

On the right: Smith

Which economists should I cover? At present, my plan for this lesson covers Bastiat, Von Mises, Keynes, Hayek, and Friedman.  If you’re going to cover, say, six to eight economists of the 1800s and 1900s in a philosophy class, does the best list consist of these guys + Marx?

I have no intention of dropping Marx; he’s just too influential to ignore.  But I would love to hear your list of five to seven others.  (Many of you know more economists than I do, and others who may be as uninformed as I am may be uninformed in a different direction!)

Published in Economics, General, Religion & Philosophy
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 96 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @SaintAugustine

    Thank you, everyone!  You’re all awesome.  There’s a lot of great commentary I will have to sift through more slowly later.

    It’s morning in my time zone, and I need to get a cup of tea and the read the Bible.  In addition, I feel the effects of an emerging Rico-holism on me, and I should try to take it easier today.

    A lot of support for adding Ricardo, Coase, and Becker!  Here’s the current tally (taking every suggestion as a vote):

    • 4 votes for adding David Ricardo;
    • (1 vote for caution regarding Ricardo;
    • 3 votes for adding Ronald Coase;
    • 3 votes for adding Gary Becker;
    • 2 votes for adding Malthus;
    • 1 vote for adding Buchanan and Tullock
    • 1 vote for adding Ayn Rand;
    • 1 vote for adding Jon von Neumann;
    • 1 vote for adding John Harsanyi;
    • 1 vote for adding Thorstein Veblen;
    • 1 vote for adding Mill;
    • 1 vote for adding “Probably the most influential economist of the nineteenth century,” Alfred Marshall
    • 1 vote for adding THE MAN, Thomas Sowell;
    • 1 vote for adding Eugen Böhm von Bawerk;
    • 1 vote for adding Amartya Sen;
    • 1 vote for adding Schumpeter;
    • 1 vote for adding someone from “the modern Keynesian cabal,” such as Krugman;
    • (1 joke about adding Krugman;)
    • 1 vote for adding “the birth of modern financial and market theory (Black / Scholes / Merton, Fama / French, etc. – . . .) and the subsequent attacks levied by the likes of Mandelbrot and Taleb”;
    • 1 vote for adding “prospect theory work done by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky“;
    • 3 votes for keeping Friedman;
    • 2 votes for keeping Bastiat;
    • 2 votes for keeping Hayek;
    • 1 vote for keeping Von Mises;
    • 1 vote for elevating Laffer from the “honorable mention if we have time” category to part of the main lesson plan;
    • 1 vote for covering reconsiderations by Keyenes and character flaws of Marx;
    • and no less than 5 votes for not calling Marx an economist (though not necessarily for kicking him out of the course of study)!
    • #61
  2. Mama Toad Member
    Mama Toad
    @CBToderakaMamaToad

    What happened to Hazlitt and Maybury? :-( (sniff…)

    • #62
  3. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @SaintAugustine

    Mama Toad:What happened to Hazlitt and Maybury? :-( (sniff…)

    Comment #59.  I didn’t ignore them entirely.  They seemed like textbook suggestions rather than suggestions for economists-philosophers to survey.  (I hope I got that right.)

    • #63
  4. Mama Toad Member
    Mama Toad
    @CBToderakaMamaToad

    Ah, thanks, I understand. Sorry to be so needy…

    • #64
  5. user_307385 Inactive
    user_307385
    @HarryWatson

    Marx was no economist. Keynes was a rotten one who has served as a crutch for many rotten ones who followed. They are the global warmest of economics whose only interest is justifying one level or another of state expansion. The most important new idea in economics in the last 50 years is rational expectations which is best represented by Robert Lucas. The work of Lucas and his fellow travelers has rendered obsolete almost all previous macro and business cycle theory. At root it is the idea that you can’t fool all the people the same way all the time. Austrian, Keynesian, and Monetarist theories all flunk this basic fact of life. In Monetarism labor markets are always distorted in the same way by confusion regarding real vs nominal wages. In Austrian, markets are always distorted in the same way by confusion over real vs government determined interest rates. Add that there is no real case for government having the power to control real interest rates. As for Keynesian “theory” it is simply bat XXXX crazy.

    • #65
  6. Muleskinner Member
    Muleskinner
    @Muleskinner

    William Stanley Jevons, Leon Walras, and Carl Menger seem to be missing. No marginal analysis, no modern economics.

    • #66
  7. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @SaintAugustine

    I’m glad to see that there continues to be little or no objection to keeping Marx, Bastiat, Von Mises, Keynes, Hayek, and Milton Friedman (though there is plenty of criticism of some of them).

    The current tally (taking every suggestion as a vote):

    • 4 votes for adding David Ricardo;
    • (1 vote for caution regarding Ricardo;)
    • 3 votes for adding Ronald Coase;
    • 3 votes for adding Gary Becker;
    • 2 votes for adding Malthus;
    • 1 vote for adding Robert Lucas;
    • 1 vote for adding Buchanan and Tullock;
    • 1 vote for adding Ayn Rand;
    • 1 vote for adding Jon von Neumann;
    • 1 vote for adding John Harsanyi;
    • 1 vote for adding Thorstein Veblen;
    • 1 vote for adding Mill;
    • 1 vote for adding “Probably the most influential economist of the nineteenth century,” Alfred Marshall;
    • 1 vote for adding THE MAN, Thomas Sowell;
    • 1 vote for adding Eugen Böhm von Bawerk;
    • 1 vote for adding Amartya Sen;
    • 1 vote for adding Schumpeter;
    • 1 vote for adding William Stanley Jevons, Leon Walras, and Carl Menger;
    • 1 vote for adding someone from “the modern Keynesian cabal,” such as Krugman;
    • (1 joke about adding Krugman;)
    • 1 vote for adding “the birth of modern financial and market theory (Black / Scholes / Merton, Fama / French, etc. – . . .) and the subsequent attacks levied by the likes of Mandelbrotand Taleb”;
    • 1 vote for adding “prospect theory work done by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky“;
    • 3 votes for keeping Friedman;
    • 2 votes for keeping Bastiat;
    • 2 votes for keeping Hayek;
    • 1 vote for keeping Von Mises;
    • 1 vote for elevating Laffer from the “honorable mention if we have time” category to part of the main lesson plan;
    • 1 vote for covering reconsiderations by Keyenes and character flaws of Marx;
    • and no less than 6 votes for not calling Marx an economist (though not necessarily for kicking him out of the course of study)!
    • #67
  8. user_435274 Thatcher
    user_435274
    @JohnHanson

    Thomas Sowell, an economist who does the best job of explaining economics to non-economists of anyone I have ever read.

    • #68
  9. George Savage Contributor
    George Savage
    @GeorgeSavage

    Another vote for Thomas Sowell. If some of your students were inspired to read Basic Economics, the world would be a saner place. Sowell’s research across time and cultures illustrates economic principles untethered to current headlines.

    • #69
  10. user_129539 Member
    user_129539
    @BrianClendinen

    I agree with your list. In studying Bastiat center you teaching around his “The Law”. It is an easy short read that a layman can fairly easily understand. I can’t think of two better books to teach students about economics than “The Law” and Thomas Sowell “Basic Economics”.

    To me Thomas Sowell’s “Basic Economics” should be the default book in high school for that half a credit students need to get in economics. The crap I read in high school was from a Christian publisher but was so poorly written a year later I could not remember a single thing from it. So I can’t even remember if they were teaching sound economics.

    I don’t like Ayn Rand, I think most of her ideas are rubbish. However, I think you have to include her in your class as maybe a transition between economics and moral philosophy, since she was influential in both. I just think she is way to influential on a sizable minority of people to ignore in a modern/contemporary philosophy class.

    • #70
  11. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @SaintAugustine

    As far as I know, Sowell is not a very influential character in the field of economics or a particularly influential philosopher, so there’s not much I can do.

    Unless I try to copy and distribute up to 10% of Sowell’s book, I think the most I can do with him is give him an honorable mention if we have time, and maybe recommend his book to students.

    (That’s not to say he doesn’t deserve quite a bit more.  He’s at least as wise a philosopher and economist as probably at least 85% of people in those fields.)

    • #71
  12. user_86050 Inactive
    user_86050
    @KCMulville

    Curious – why do you want to include “economist philosophers” in the first place? What philosophical principles, worked out in economics, are you hoping to discuss?

    That raises the topic of the relationship between philosophy and economics, and while I have my own views there, I’d be interested in what you would say.

    (Might be a post by itself, not trying to hijack this one.)

    • #72
  13. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @SaintAugustine

    KC Mulville:Curious – why do you want to include “economist philosophers” in the first place? What philosophical principles, worked out in economics, are you hoping to discuss?

    I’m just trying to help them understand the history of modern-contemporary philosophy.  Economics is a pretty big part of it, with Smith and Locke and Marx.  I’m not really going for any particular principles.

    • #73
  14. Ryan M Member
    Ryan M
    @RyanM

    Augustine:The tally so far:

    • 2 votes for adding David Ricardo;
    • 2 votes for adding Ronald Coase;
    • 1 vote for keeping Von Mises;
    • 1 vote for keeping Friedman;
    • 1 vote for adding Gary Becker;
    • 1 vote for elevating Laffer from the “honorable mention if we have time” category to part of the main lesson plan;
    • 1 vote for not calling Marx an economist (though not for kicking him out of the course of study).

    Coase will be easier to read than Von Mises, in my opinion.  Friedman even easier than those.  Gary Becker is interesting.  Too bad you can’t read Adam Smith, since his earlier book “Theory of Moral Sentiments” is far more philosophical than anything most economists ever write… Hayek, of course, is good.

    My suggestion would be to send a nice email to Russ Roberts, who hosts the EconTalk podcast.  He’s had shows that highlight all of the above economists, and could give you a very good overview of the way they might be structured in a class (i.e. if you’re talking Marx, you might want someone from his time who offered a counteropinion; Hayek and Keynes actually dialogued, so that one is obvious, etc…)

    You can find Russ at http://www.econtalk.org.  If you start with “I’m a college professor trying to structure a class,” I’m sure he would be more than happy to contribute.  FWIW, he studied under Becker and Friedman at the University of Chicago and was personal friends with both.

    • #74
  15. Ryan M Member
    Ryan M
    @RyanM

    Augustine:As far as I know, Sowell is not a very influential character in the field of economics or a particularly influential philosopher, so there’s not much I can do.

    I’m having a hard time understanding what you’re using as a limiting principle, here… After all, you’re teaching Marx in a philosophy class and wanting to add economists.  With Coase, say, you get the Coase theorem, which I do agree is somewhat philosophical; Von Mises, in his book Human Action, certainly philosophizes as much as he economizes (yeah, I’m making up words).  But still, you seem to be crafting a course that would be frowned upon by most liberal-arts college professors, so why are you not simply teaching what you know to be good (i.e. Sowell, etc…) and limiting yourself, seemingly only partially, on what would be generally accepted?

    Note, I had to read “Democracy for the Few” in college, in a class by a self-described socialist.  As I see it, if you’re teaching the class, you pick the material.

    • #75
  16. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @SaintAugustine

    Ryan M:

    I’m having a hard time understanding what you’re using as a limiting principle, here… After all, you’re teaching Marx in a philosophy class and wanting to add economists. With Coase, say, you get the Coase theorem, which I do agree is somewhat philosophical; Von Mises, in his book Human Action, certainly philosophizes as much as he economizes (yeah, I’m making up words). But still, you seem to be crafting a course that would be frowned upon by most liberal-arts college professors, so why are you not simply teaching what you know to be good (i.e. Sowell, etc…) and limiting yourself, seemingly only partially, on what would be generally accepted?

    Note, I had to read “Democracy for the Few” in college, in a class by a self-described socialist. As I see it, if you’re teaching the class, you pick the material.

    The thing is that this is not a class.  This is just one 50-minute lesson–or two 50-minute lessons counting the Marx lesson.

    I just can’t do much philosophy-economics in this class without seriously short-changing philosophy of religion, or philosophy of science, or metaphysics, or epistemology, or ethics.  We gotta cover Descartes and Bacon (the philosopher, not the food) and Hobbes and Locke and Hume and Reid and Kant and Hegel and Marx and Nietzsche and James and Ayer and Kuhn and MacIntyre and Plantinga and Iqbal and (hopefully) the Dalai Lama–and I might be forgetting something.  (LEWIS: THE ABOLITION OF MAN.  That’s what I forgot.)

    So the priorities are (1) to give them an intro to a few economist-philosophers they don’t know about (they generally already know a bit about Marx and Smith) and (2) to give them a contrary perspective to Marx (since he tends to be overly popular, and since I think he’s largely wrong) and (3) to give them a decent intro to the overlap of economics and philosophy.

    For these priorities, I’m pretty sure I must have Keynes and Friedman, and probably Hayek; and Hayek and Bastiat and Von Mises are fun and useful.  I’m not sure Sowell contributes to these priories much, unless I try using him as assigned reading; if I’m wrong about that, I hope someone can enlighten me.

    I currently plan to make him the most honorable of honorable mentions, right before Laffer, and to recommend Basic Economics.

    • #76
  17. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @SaintAugustine

    KC Mulville:That raises the topic of the relationship between philosophy and economics, and while I have my own views there, I’d be interested in what you would say.

    I might be interested in what I have to say too.  I have no idea what it would be right now, except that it would have something to do with the quest for the good life.  A good topic for a new thread indeed!

    • #77
  18. user_483582 Inactive
    user_483582
    @PepeLePew

    Hernando de Soto, whose book is short and effective regarding why a third world is in its economy condition.
    ◾De Soto, Hernando. The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. Basic Books, 2000. ISBN 0-465-01614-6

    • #78
  19. user_86050 Inactive
    user_86050
    @KCMulville

    Augustine:

    KC Mulville:That raises the topic of the relationship between philosophy and economics, and while I have my own views there, I’d be interested in what you would say.

    I might be interested in what I have to say too. I have no idea what it would be right now, except that it would have something to do with the quest for the good life. A good topic for a new thread indeed!

    On the Philosophy of Economics – oh we could have a few debates on this one!

    Also on the Stanford Philosophy site is this article about economics and justice.

    Either article would be a good exercise in critical thinking, and shatter a few entrenched assumptions. And serve as fodder for good battles here on Ricochet. I may have to post on these …

    • #79
  20. Ryan M Member
    Ryan M
    @RyanM

    Augustine:

    Ryan M:

    I’m having a hard time understanding what you’re using as a limiting principle, here… After all, you’re teaching Marx in a philosophy class and wanting to add economists. With Coase, say, you get the Coase theorem, which I do agree is somewhat philosophical; Von Mises, in his book Human Action, certainly philosophizes as much as he economizes (yeah, I’m making up words). But still, you seem to be crafting a course that would be frowned upon by most liberal-arts college professors, so why are you not simply teaching what you know to be good (i.e. Sowell, etc…) and limiting yourself, seemingly only partially, on what would be generally accepted?

    Note, I had to read “Democracy for the Few” in college, in a class by a self-described socialist. As I see it, if you’re teaching the class, you pick the material.

    The thing is that this is not a class. This is just one 50-minute lesson–or two 50-minute lessons counting the Marx lesson.

    I just can’t do much philosophy-economics in this class without seriously short-changing philosophy of religion, or philosophy of science, or metaphysics, or epistemology, or ethics. We gotta cover Descartes and Bacon (the philosopher, not the food) and Hobbes and Locke and Hume and Reid and Kant and Hegel and Marx and Nietzsche and James and Ayer and Kuhn and MacIntyre and Plantinga and Iqbal and (hopefully) the Dalai Lama–and I might be forgetting something. (LEWIS: THE ABOLITION OF MAN. That’s what I forgot.)

    So the priorities are (1) to give them an intro to a few economist-philosophers they don’t know about (they generally already know a bit about Marx and Smith) and (2) to give them a contrary perspective to Marx (since he tends to be overly popular, and since I think he’s largely wrong) and (3) to give them a decent intro to the overlap of economics and philosophy.

    For these priorities, I’m pretty sure I must have Keynes and Friedman, and probably Hayek; and Hayek and Bastiat and Von Mises are fun and useful. I’m not sure Sowell contributes to these priories much, unless I try using him as assigned reading; if I’m wrong about that, I hope someone can enlighten me.

    I currently plan to make him the most honorable of honorable mentions, right before Laffer, and to recommend Basic Economics.

    Yes, this makes it much more clear.  As far as Keynes goes, he is far better than Marx.  I don’t really see why you must have him, though, except inasmuch as you’re discussing the impact that individuals have had…  along those lines, Marx has had a strong influence, but Keynes has had a very similar influence on very similar people.  Hayek, unfortunately, is not all that influential, even though he is much better.  All that depends, of course, on what you’re attempting to convey.  Adam Smith probably does the best job of incorporating actual philosophy into economics…  what Marx shows us is that people will often be drawn in by something that allows them to place their problems at the feet of a third party (ok, my paraphrase), which is an interesting philosophical question, I suppose, but that is in spite of, not because of, his own philosophy.  Someone like Friedman dealt with monetary policy, not philosophy.  Becker is interesting from a sociological perspective inasmuch as he wrote about things that might have been somewhat taboo – or, he treated people like commodities, which is useful and interesting, but gives people pause from a moral standpoint.

    If you want a very easy (but brilliant) text, consider “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt.

    I once again suggest asking the question to Russ Roberts regarding who might be a good counter to Marx.  If you choose Von Mises, don’t even dream of asking anyone to pick up “Human Action,” which is enormous.  He wrote a great little book called “Liberalism: The Classical Tradition,” that would be a relatively easy read for college students and a reasonable expectation from any professor.

    • #80
  21. Ricochet Inactive
    Ricochet
    @DADyer

    Lots of great suggestions. I have to agree with Muleskinner that Carl Menger definitely should be included for creating (with Walras and Jevons all working independently) the Subjective Theory of Value which relegated to the dustbin of history all of Marx’s economic/philosophical theories because they were based on the Labor Theory of Value.

    Menger was also responsible for the Austrian School of Economics from which Böhm-Bawerk , Von Mises, and Hayek emerged.

    By the way, it was Thomas Carlyle who actually put the “dismal” in dismal science, although he was inspired by Malthus, Ricardo, Mill and the other Classicals. (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dismalscience.asp)

    • #81
  22. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @SaintAugustine

    KC Mulville:

    On the Philosophy of Economics – oh we could have a few debates on this one!

    Also on the Stanford Philosophy site is this article about economics and justice.

    Either article would be a good exercise in critical thinking, and shatter a few entrenched assumptions. And serve as fodder for good battles here on Ricochet. I may have to post on these …

    I often give students readings from Plato.Stanford.  Maybe I should look into those for assigning a reading.

    And, yes, a new thread sometime on the subject would be neat.

    • #82
  23. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @SaintAugustine

    Ryan M:

    If you choose Von Mises, don’t even dream of asking anyone to pick up “Human Action,” which is enormous. He wrote a great little book called “Liberalism: The Classical Tradition,” that would be a relatively easy read for college students and a reasonable expectation from any professor.

    I’m not even sure I’m giving them a reading.  If I do it will have to be an online encyclopedia, or something I can legally distribute myself.  If it includes Von Mises, I’m afraid it will be limited to mere paragraphs.

    • #83
  24. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @SaintAugustine

    Ryan M:

    If you want a very easy (but brilliant) text, consider “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt.

    Thank you for that suggestion also.  It’s from 1946; that means I can legally distribute it.

    • #84
  25. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @SaintAugustine

    Thank you, everyone.  You’re all awesome.

    The current tally: (taking every suggestion as a vote):

    • 4 votes for adding David Ricardo;
    • (1 vote for caution regarding Ricardo;
    • 4 votes for adding Ronald Coase;
    • 4 votes for adding Gary Becker;
    • 3 (most of them enthusiastic) votes for adding THE MAN, Thomas Sowell;
    • 2 votes for adding Carl Menger;
    • 2 votes for adding Malthus;
    • 2 votes for adding Ayn Rand;
    • (1 charge that Rand‘s ideas are rubbish;)
    • 1 vote for adding DAVID Friedman
    • 1 vote for adding Robert Lucas;
    • 1 vote for adding Buchanan and Tullock;
    • 1 vote for adding Jon von Neumann;
    • 1 vote for adding John Harsanyi;
    • 1 vote for adding Thorstein Veblen;
    • 1 vote for adding Mill;
    • 1 vote for adding “Probably the most influential economist of the nineteenth century,” Alfred Marshall;
    • 1 vote for adding Eugen Böhm von Bawerk;
    • 1 vote for adding Amartya Sen;
    • 1 vote for adding Schumpeter;
    • 1 vote for adding Hernando de Soto;
    • 1 vote for adding William Stanley Jevons;
    • 1 vote for adding Leon Walras;
    • 1 vote for adding someone from “the modern Keynesian cabal,” such as Krugman;
    • (1 joke about adding Krugman;)
    • 1 vote for adding “the birth of modern financial and market theory (Black / Scholes / Merton, Fama / French, etc. – . . .) and the subsequent attacks levied by the likes of Mandelbrotand Taleb”;
    • 1 vote for adding “prospect theory work done by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky“;
    • 5 votes for keeping MILTON Friedman;
    • 4 votes for keeping Hayek;
    • 3 votes for keeping Bastiat;
    • 2 vote for keeping Von Mises;
    • 1 vote for keeping Keynes;
    • 1 vote for elevating Laffer from the “honorable mention if we have time” category to part of the main lesson plan;
    • 1 vote for covering reconsiderations by Keyenes and character flaws of Marx;
    • some praise for Smith and laments that I’m not considering him for this lesson;
    • and no less than 6 votes for not calling Marx an economist (though not necessarily for kicking him out of the course of study)!
    • #85
  26. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @SaintAugustine

    I’m ready to start making a few decisions on all this.  I’m going to look into adding one or two to the main lesson, starting with RicardoCoase, and Becker, who received the most votes, and then some folks who received few votes but very high praise like Alfred Marshall.  (If I don’t add these to the main lesson they will likely end up as honorable mentions at the end of the lesson.)

    I’m dividing the honorable mentions at the end of the lesson plan into two categories: historical dead ones and living ones.

    In the historical dead category:

    • Carl Menger, founder of the Austrian School;
    • Ayn Rand;
    • and Thomas Malthus.

    In the living category:

    • Sowell (with a book recommendation),
    • Laffer (just the Laffer Curve),
    • Larry Kudlow to the right,
    • Paul Krugman to the left,
    • Hernando de Soto,
    • Dambisa Moyo,
    • Wayne Grudem and Barry Asmus,
    • and Thomas Piketty.

    You may notice that doesn’t cover all suggestions; I’m only ready to make some decisions at this point.

    • #86
  27. Ryan M Member
    Ryan M
    @RyanM

    Augustine:

    Ryan M:

    If you want a very easy (but brilliant) text, consider “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt.

    Thank you for that suggestion also. It’s from 1946; that means I can legally distribute it.

    There is an online copy available somewhere.  I’ll see if I can find it.

    • #87
  28. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @SaintAugustine

    Ryan M:

    Augustine:

    Ryan M:

    If you want a very easy (but brilliant) text, consider “Economics in One Lesson” by Henry Hazlitt.

    Thank you for that suggestion also. It’s from 1946; that means I can legally distribute it.

    There is an online copy available somewhere. I’ll see if I can find it.

    Wikipedia had a link to an html edition.

    • #88
  29. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @SaintAugustine

    I’ve added Ricardo to my main lesson plan.  Principle of Comparative Advantage: useful and insightful.  Emphasis on international free market and global trade: helpful counter to Marx.  And also very influential in economic history.

    • #89
  30. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @SaintAugustine

    And I’m adding Becker as an honorable mention.

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.