There is a tendency not to study economic history

There is a tendency not to study economic history around the world. Not only famous universities in the United States, but also in Korea and Europe, economic history was a must for economics students in the past, but now some schools do not have a subject at all.

Why on earth is that?
There is a perception among economists that economic history is useless.
Only theoretical tendencies exist and speak to the degree of discipline handled by those who do not have the intellectual ability to handle mathematical statistics.

Is that really true?

It is argued that it grows and develops only when regulations are removed.
But it grew the fastest in the 1950s and 1970s, when economic history was the most regulated and tax rates were high. Globally, that's true, and Korea is a little later...
It is not easy for a person who is said to grow by reducing taxes and bureaucracy to claim this if he knows history.

Moreover, the boundary of the free market is ambiguous. In the past, child labor, slaves, and government offices were legally traded. But now they are all illegal. Then, this means that the free market has changed. After all, the historical clause consideration of what a free market is and the philosophical concept become important.

A liberal advocate talks a lot about Singapore, for example.
He studies and claims that he introduced a free trade policy and that he has achieved economic success.
However, all land in Singapore is owned by the government, 85% of the homes are supplied by the government-owned Housing Development Commission, and the government is responsible for 25% of the total output (10% international average).

Is Singapore a liberal country??

As such, it is difficult to explain a country's growth or development model with one economic theory, so it is very important to know how economic trends and history have changed according to the circumstances of the times through economic history.

Friedman and Sam Sam Samuelson I posted... In this book as well, Friedman's theory was once rich, but it actually all failed. Now, only monetary theory is considered in some policies among Friedman's claims.

Ignoring economic history may equate to me being ignorant

- a partial quote from the book of Jang Ha-jun -