Historians And Economists

Sweep economist off their throne
First of all, I'm going to define my point of view on the basis that for me, historians and economists are in the right way with somethings and in the wrong way with another ones.
An important thing is that we have to realise during the whole text that every historian are criticizing the bad work done by theeconomists because they didn't predict the actual economic crisis. And every economist is saying that the historians cannot help the government, they only are usefulentertaining people with their "histories".
I'm going to start with the historians, I think that the history itself is a mere knowledge of the past, but in this point we can usethe history to determine the meaning of the events that occur in the present and ones that will occur in the future. In this way the history is necessary to know thepresent, and maybe to know more about the future, solving the errors of the past. The problem that I see is that the history is so subjective that in some cases (most of them) isvery difficult to determine what is the best way to solve these errors; here is where the economy can appear.
The economists are who can solve these errors with "models andequations"; they have to forget, in its just measure, the ambition to predict the future with the purpose of improving the present.
We can combine well-equilibrated, theknowledge of the past together with the laws of the economy, laws that the history don't have and it would be interesting to do this relationship.
Now is the time forhistorians to analyze the past and present economic history, with this I refer to the beginning of the economic crisis, and show us why the economists methods have failed.