Category: Economists

Categories
Chicago Economists

Chicago. Friedman from Cambridge on Arrow, Tobin, Harry Johnson, Joan Robinson. 1953

Thank goodness for leaves of absence and sabbaticals! In an earlier age letters were actually exchanged between the lone scholar off to foreign groves of academe or government service and colleagues back at the home institution. When Milton Friedman went off to the University of Cambridge for the academic year 1953-54 (see Chapter 17 “Our First Year Abroad”  in Milton and Rose D. Friedman, Two Lucky People: Memoirs), he wrote detailed letters discussing departmental matters and impressions of Cambridge academic life to the chair of the department, Theodore W. Schultz. In this posting we encounter Milton Friedman’s views on possible candidates to take up the directorship of the Cowles Commission, his very positive impression of Harry Johnson, his utter shock regarding Joan Robinson’s views on China, and comparisons between Chicago and Cambridge training in economics. More to come:  Here a letter dated 29 March 1954.

______________________

If you find this posting interesting, here is the complete list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have assembled. You can subscribe to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror below. There is also an opportunity for comment following each posting….

_____________________

15 Latham Road
Cambridge, England
October 28, 1953

Dear Ted [Theodore W. Schultz]:

Many thanks for your letter of October 22. It contained a fuller budget of news then I had otherwise received. I am delighted to hear of the decision of the Rockefeller Foundation, and appreciate your taking the necessary steps including repairing my omission in not specifying the effective date. I am sorry to hear that the problems raised by my absence were still further complicated by Allen [W. Allen Wallis?]. The Harberger-Johnson [Arnold Harberger; D. Gale Johnson] arrangement seems, however, excellent.

It is certainly too bad about Arrow. Re Tobin, as you know, I have in the past had a very high opinion of his ability and promise though I would not have put him as high as Arrow. I regret to say, however, that my opinion fell somewhat this summer as a result of going over in great detail his article on the consumption function in the collection of essays in honor of [John Henry] Williams. As you may know, I drafted this summer a lengthy paper on the theory of the consumption function. One of the pieces of evidence I considered was Tobin’s paper, which reached conclusions in variance with most of the other evidence. On close examination, his conclusions turned out not to be justified by his own evidence, but rather to be a product of sloppy and incompetent statistical analysis. One swallow does not of course make a summer, but I am inclined to give this piece of evidence more weight than I otherwise would since it is the only bit of his work that I have gone over with sufficient care to feel great confidence in my judgment of it. My generally favorable opinion has been based on a rather superficial and casual reading of most of his other published work – indeed, on first reading, I had had an equally favorable opinion of the consumption paper. His memorandum on research that you sent me strikes me as being on the whole very sensible and very good.

In view of the above, I am very uncertain how to respond to your request for my “vote”. Everything obviously depends on the alternatives, and these are likely to vary if viewed in terms of the Cowles position in the department. Are either the former, Tobin may well be the best of the available people. Re: the latter, I much more dubious that he is than formerly. In view of my inability to participate in the discussion of the alternatives, the best thing seems to me to be to abstain from casting a definite vote either way, to make it clear that I shall cheerfully accept the decision of my colleagues, but to urge them strongly to canvass possible alternatives carefully and if possible to avoid letting an appointment to Cowles also commit the department to a permanent appointment in the department, unless the letter seems desirable on its own account.

May I complicate your problem further by introducing another name that the department ought to keep in mind in considering its long-run plans, namely Harry Johnson, now here at Cambridge, but originally a Canadian. Of the various younger people I have met around here, he impresses me as being by all odds the best and most promising, and as of the moment I would unhesitatingly rate him above Tobin. As you know, his specialty has been money and he lectures here on money and banking, but he has also been doing some work in international trade. More than most of the people here he has worked in technical and scientific economics instead of allowing himself to be diverted almost entirely to policy issues – which I suppose appeals to me partly because his policy position is so different from my own but impresses me partly also because I have been rather shocked by how large a part of intellectual activity around here is concerned almost exclusively with current policy issues. I have no idea whether Johnson would be interested in moving – he is certainly regarded as one of the clearly important and promising people at Cambridge and seems to have an assured future here – but the chance seems to me sufficiently great that we ought to keep him on our list.

Incidentally, back to Tobin, Dorothy Brady was having my piece on consumption typed up and was to send a copy to Margaret Reid when done, so that the detailed criticism of Tobin’s article that it contains could be made available to anyone who wanted to look at it.

Writing this paragraph just gave me a brainstorm – why not Dorothy for the Cowles post? In her case it would be easier to separate the appointment from a departmental commitment since she would almost certainly not demand tenure; she is a first-rate and experienced administrator; she has the necessary mathematical and statistical background; and she might give the research program a highly desirable shift toward closer contact with significant detailed empirical and economic problems – which is probably at the same time her strongest recommendation and the greatest obstacle to agreement.

On the other issue you raise, I am very much in favor – from our point of view – of Al Rees for the editorship. I think he would be an excellent editor. I am delighted that you were able to persuade Earl [Hamilton] to stay on for another year – I wish he felt able to keep it longer, as I am sure we all do, but Al seems to me clearly the next best alternative.

We have been enjoying Cambridge very much indeed, though I must confess that to date it has been too stimulating and active for me to have gotten much work done. I am enormously impressed – and in some directions, depressed – by the difference in atmosphere from the US. Educationally, the aim of education is to train the future ruling class rather than simply to educate people, which accounts for much more explicit emphasis in teaching and research on problems of immediate economic policy – economics is essentially taught as an art to be employed by rulers rather than as a science. There is enormous emphasis on form and cleverness, which reaches its peak in debates, of which I have participated in one (opposing the resolution “Yankee-eating baiting is unjustifiable and ungrateful” – tell me, how should I interpret the fact that on the vote of the audience, my side won?) And listening to another in the Cambridge Union. Surprisingly, the appeal is to the emotions rather than the reason; the level of wit and of phrasing is amazingly high, of intellectual content, abysmal. Politically, the atmosphere is incredibly redder than at home. This, I think, accounts for a good deal of the misunderstanding here of the state of civil liberties in the US. The right comparison to make is between tolerance of opinions equally deviant from the norm; the comparison that is made is between tolerance of the same opinion; but the normal opinion here would be regarded as clearly “left” at home, and moderately left opinion here is extremely radical; this difference in average opinion leads to the belief here that there is complete intolerance in the United States. These reflections are partly stimulated by a talk Joan Robinson gave on China a little over a week ago. It was an incredible talk to me; I was glad I went because I wouldn’t have believed anybody who had given me an accurate report, and you will have the same difficulty in believing mine. What is incredible is not alone that she sincerely believed the most extreme statements of the Chinese Communists about tremendous progress as a result of the “liberation”, but that she presented them without any examination of the internal consistency of her successive statements, without a sign of critical intelligence at work, without attempting to cite evidence of a kind she could have expected to acquire as a result of her brief visit there. Had the same talk been given by a faculty member in the US there undoubtedly would have been a fuss while here it passed over without a ripple. This difference may in part reflect a difference in tolerance of extreme opinions; but to a much greater extent it reflects the fact that her opinion is nothing like so extreme relative to British opinion as relative to American. The fair comparison is between the reception of her speech and one that, let us say, Maynard Krueger would make; and I doubt that there would be much difference in the reactions in that case.

The anti-American feeling is really extreme. It is widely accepted that America has concluded that war is inevitable, is no longer even interested in maintaining the peace and only waiting for an appropriate time to start a war. The American troops in England and Europe are said to be unwanted – though I’m sure an outcry would go up if they were to be withdrawn. England’s trade difficulties are America’s fault, because American productivity is growing so shockingly fast – this is a theme that in politer form is being increasingly put forth in academic circles, note especially Hicks in his inaugural address. All in all, these views, surprisingly enough, lead the left and not so left here to espouse essentially the Hoover-Taft position about the role America should play.

These are all of course first impressions for a highly biased segment of England, so I know you will take them with the mass of salt they deserve.

We’re all personally fine. The kids are quite happy in their schools. We are happy to be coming to the end of our month in a hotel – we move into the house we rented this Friday.

Our very best to everyone.

 

Yours,

[signed]

Milton

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman Papers. Box 194, Folder “194.6 Economics Department S-Z, 1946-1976”.

Image: Left, Milton Friedman (between 1946 and 1953 according to note on back of photo in the Hoover Archive in the Milton Friedman papers). Right, Theodore W. Schultz from University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-07484, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Economists M.I.T.

MIT. Suggestions for New Fields. Domar, Kuh, Solow, Adelman, 1967

The following set of memoranda from the MIT economics department is found in a folder marked “Correspondence: Peter Temin” in Evsey Domar’s papers. The bulk of the material in the folder are letters of support that Domar solicited for the committee he chaired (which consisted of Domar, Charles Kindleberger and Frank Fisher) to review Peter Temin for tenure. It thus appears that Domar’s proposal to strengthen economic history at MIT in February 1967 was seen (at least by him) to have led later to granting Peter Temin tenure at MIT. See Peter Temin’s reflections on “The Rise and Fall of Economic History at MIT.”

In response to a request by the Head of the department, E. Cary Brown, for input to a long-range plan (1967-1975), we have here not only Evsey Domar’s response but also memos from Edwin Kuh (more econometrics!), Robert Solow (“poverty-manpower” or “a really high-class macro-numbers man”) and M. A. Adelman (energy economics).

Even Robert Solow’s intradepartmental memos sparkle with wit!

_________________________________

February 7, 1967

MEMORANDUM

 

To: Members of the Economics Department
From: E. Cary Brown
Subject: Long-Range Departmental Plans

President H. Johnson has asked that Departments submit long-range plans – by two-year intervals through the academic year 1974-5. The basic constraints, other than budgetary, are that the undergraduate student body is to remain fixed at its present level and that graduate students at M.I.T. Grow at only a 3% rate per year. The projection desired is of the expansion in existing fields, into new fields, the population of the department – faculty, staff, students, post-doctorals, and administration and supporting staff.

In order to get a dialogue started, I suggest that each of you send me a note on the need for new fields, the expansion of existing ones, and your views about our undergraduate and graduate size. I can then prepare an agenda for a meeting or two on this matter.

_________________________________

 

[Evsey Domar response]

  1. New Fields, etc.
    1. Economic History. Could tie in very well with our economic developers. Also help to create a better balance in the Department.
    2. Economics and Technology (Mansfield, etc.) MIT should be just the place for it.
    3. I hope Max continues to be interested in South-East Asia. The US will be involved there for a long time. Any chances for a South-east. Asia Center or something?
  2. Number of Students
    No strong feelings. A larger number of both faculty and students allows us to offer a greater variety of courses.

As you know, Economic History is my main concern.

_________________________________

 

[Edwin Kuh response]

February 13, 1967

MEMORANDUM

TO:                 Professor E. Cary Brown
FROM:          Professor Edwin Kuh
SUBJECT:     Some Economics Department Needs in the Long Run

Let me first grind my own econometric axe. We need additional support in two econometric areas. The first pertains to support for quantitative theses; Frank Fisher, Bob Solow and I carry a heavy load in this connection, which is unlikely to diminish. Second, we ought to have more strength than we do in econometric time series analysis, an important topic not covered by existing faculty. Marc Nerlove, for instance, ranks high on both counts. Less senior individuals include David Grether who combines both aspects (Stanford Ph.D. going to Yale this fall) and possibly Joseph Kadane also at Yale, who is more the statistician. Jim Durbin and Bill Phillips would be fine, too, qua statisticians contributing to econometrics.

Next, suppose we are fortunate enough to attract both Ken Arrow and C. V. Wiesacker [sic] ; the net balance in favor of theory would then become heavy indeed. There will be no need to panic and for instance, proceed instantly to hire Arthur Burns. But even so, it will behoove the department to push relentlessly on expanding the more empirical side. Since all tenure slots by then will have been sewed up, I don’t see how this can readily be done.

Finally, the department ought to raise more finance for computation. The burden has been disproportionately assumed by the Sloan School, even though several Economics Department research projects have made highly welcome and substantial contributions to the installation downstairs. In this connection, the department should seriously consider acquiring the long run services of someone with a major interest [in] computer systems; very different and high qualified individuals such as Mark Eisner or Don Carroll come to mind. The department will lag behind seriously unless it expands in this direction.

This has not been a balanced presentation of needs. I shall leave that to more balanced individuals.

 

_________________________________

 

[Robert M. Solow response]

MEMORANDUM TO: E. Cary Brown, Head
FROM: Robert M. Solow
SUBJECT: Yours of February 7

 

  1. Undergraduate program. I suppose basically we just passively accept as many majors as come along. We might attract more by improving the teaching and brightening up the course offering. So far we have got along just fine with a pretty dreary undergraduate program, and previous attempts to Do Something have petered out. Is history trying to tell us something? The only reason I can think of for trying again is this: if the department faculty is going to state bigger, especially among assistant professors, then we probably need some decent undergraduate teaching for them to do. (Not only them – I would volunteer to do some too.) Why not let the assistant professors do the planning – they probably have more ideas. Suggestions: new undergraduate subjects in mathematical economics, econometrics, “poverty”, transportation (or public investment); cancel one of the current Labor subjects (or convert to “poverty”), maybe cancel 14.06, 14.09; organize research seminar on one-big-project basis; keep 3 or 4 of the best seniors on as PhD candidates as a matter of course.
  1. Graduate program. Does it have to expand to justify slightly enlarged faculty? If so, then accept universe, but fight like hell for adequate space, scholarships, research funds. If not, think carefully. If faculty enlarges and improves, we should be able to do better on admissions. There will always be some lemons admitted; but it is a question whether one would not prefer current size of enrollment with improved bottom half to enlarged enrollment with current quality. If we get Arrow and Weizsäcker, and keep half-dozen assistant professors, some growth of graduate student body probably inevitable. But I’d keep it slow, and in line with admission quality, space, scholarships, research money. Aim for entering class of 40 by 1975? Certainly no more.
  1. New fields. If MIT goes into Urban Studies, I think we ought to move too. This means some joint research, perhaps offering a few fellowships specifically in urban economics, some new appointments (transportation, poverty, local finance), probably young guys. (I’d like to see Mike Piore and Frank Levy free to start something.) (Would Bill Pounds like to hire Joe Kershaw?) Maybe we ought to start looking next fall. This complex could be a major counterweight to theory. We could make a senior appointment, but I doubt we could find a good enough man. We also lack a really high-class macro-numbers man – like Art Okun or Otto Eckstein or George Perry. Should we try Les Thurow? Or try eventually for Steve Goldfeld? Goldfeld would help with Money, but Thurow would fit into poverty-manpower bit. I think I might seriously favor going for Thurow now if we can afford it.

_________________________________

 

[M. A. Adelman response]

March 16, 1967

Memorandum to:     Professor E. Cary Brown
From:                         M.A. Adelman
Subject:  President H. W. Johnson’s request to submit long-range plans: industrial organization field

  1. Enrollment in the graduate course has declined to the point where it is best given in alternate years. Theses written have not decreased, and there are six now in preparation. I wish to use the time made available to teach the course on energy economics when Paul Rodan retires. The remaining time is best devoted to undergraduate teaching (see below).
  2. Undergraduate enrollment seems to be on the increase in 14.02, 14.04, and 14.22. With the appointment of Robert Crandall, we are fully staffed. I would wish to have 14.02 taught exclusively by lecture and sections (teaching assistants) except where the undergraduates’ program will not permit it. Where we are compelled to fill in with three-recitation sections, I strongly urge that they should not be taught by teaching assistants. Since the transfer to lectures economizes manpower, these two changes should be offsetting, but will take more of my own time.
  3. I have given a joint seminar with Harvard (Economics Department and Middle East Center) on Eastern Hemisphere Oil, and will repeat it next year. It is still an uncertain venture, however, in a sensitive area, and the fuss about CIA influence in academic research may kill it.
  4. I join in concern over our weakness in economic history. East European economics might best be treated as an expansion of our current offering in Soviet economics, since there is sufficient unity of geography and practice. I wish some encouragement could be given to East Asian especially Japanese studies, where English sometimes suffices, but would not care to have it as a field of specialization.

 

Source: Duke University, Rubenstein Library. Evsey D. Domar papers, Box 7, Folder “Peter Temin” [apparently misfiled].

Image Source: MIT 1959 Technique (Yearbook).

Categories
Economists Irwin Collier M.I.T.

MIT. Samuelson at the Joint Economic Committee, 1973

Marina v.Neumann Whitman and Paul A. Samuelson

Backstory:

When I was an undergraduate I was extremely fortunate to have received an internship at the Council of Economic Advisers in Washington, D.C. Even though I was anything but a Republican and the semester-long internship began less than three months after the bungled Watergate break-in at the Democratic National Committee by the White House “plumbers”, I eagerly grabbed this opportunity when it was offered in August, 1972 to begin that September. I was assigned to two labor market economists, one of whom (June O’Neill) would be tasked to write chapter 4 “The Economic Role of Women” in the 1973 Annual Report of the CEA and for which I did all the tabulations and number-crunching at a time when research assistants at the Council had Wang calculators on their desks that were tethered to an “electronic package” with a data hose but that did possess the virtue of calculating logarithms (!) with a single keystroke. My bosses were sufficiently satisfied with my work that I was invited back for the Summer of 1973.

My time at the Council coincided not just with the Watergate scandal but also with some of the episode of wage-and-price controls. When concerned citizens wrote to the Council of Economic Advisers, their letters would be passed down the pecking order and most often landed on the desk of an intern to draft a polite, Econ 1 response. One of the women interns, came through the office in a rant because when she consulted Paul Samuelson’s Economics for some boiler-plate about shortages and price controls to include in a letter, she found a not untypical Samuelsonian wisecrack “Of course, there are always a few women and cranks, longer on intuition than brains, who blame their troubles on the mechanism of rationing itself rather than on the shortage.” Even though I was not even aware that I would be going to MIT myself a little more than a year later, I instinctively wanted to protect my hero, figuring my colleague consulted an old edition and times-have-changed-for-the-better. A nice thing about the Council of Economic Advisers is that it had economists of all generations in residence so that in a matter of no time we had multiple editions in which we could seek and then compare the offending passages. Indeed my intuition was correct, by the 1970 edition “women and cranks” was softened to “cranky customers” but to our procrastinating horror we discovered that the earliest edition referred to “women and soap-box orators” that was only later changed to the somewhat more offensive “women and cranks”.

Not long after this serendipitous discovery of Paul Samuelson’s personal journey in matters of gender awareness, I heard that Herbert Stein and Marina von Neumann Whitman were to testify before the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress in a set of hearings devoted to the “Economic Problems of Women” and that no less an economist than Paul Samuelson was to testify as well. I quickly wrote up a memo to my boss, June O’Neill, suggesting that perhaps this would be a cute opening remark for Marina Whitman, albeit at Samuelson’s expense, illustrating the gradual rise in consciousness of economists with respect to women’s issues.

Today’s posting includes the relevant part of Marina von Neumann Whitman’s testimony where the input from my memo can be seen. (Thank you for the memory FRASER!)

I was slightly disappointed when I read Paul Samuelson’s printed testimony, because he led off with a remark to the effect that “I am surprised, given the magnitude of the economic problems facing the United States, that the President’s Council of Economic Advisers would have the time to go back to uncover my past errors.” That statement did not get recorded in the official transcript however. My memory of his facial expression at the time was of unamused to slightly irritated. Later as a graduate student I never did have the courage to ask Samuelson if he remembered that particular moment in the hearing much less confess to my complicity.

My feeble attempt at a reparation for even providing the backstory to this Samuelson anecdote rather than mercifully allowing it to remain in the obscurity of a transcript from a JEC hearing is to place into my blog record a few paragraphs from near the end of Samuelson’s spoken testimony.

In today’s summer of the American white-male’s discontent Samuelson’s casual remarks about the differences in labor market experiences of men and women seem quite prescient. 

_______________________________

 

ECONOMIC PROBLEMS OF WOMEN

Tuesday, July 10, 1973.

Congress of the United States,
Joint Economic Committee,
Washington, D.C.

 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:12 a.m., in room S-407, the Capitol Building, Hon. Martha W. Griffiths (member of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representative Griffiths and Widnall.

[…]

Mrs. Whitman. […] In fact, this fourth chapter of the 1973 Economic Report of the President represents the first time that the report of the Council of Economic Advisers has directed considerable attention to the economic problems of women. The formation of the Advisory Committee on the Economic Role of Women is another first for the Council. The economics profession has been slow in developing expertise on the special problems of women; and Federal data sources have only begun to tailor surveys so that they can yield appropriate statistics about women. One role of the Committee is to fill in some of the deficiencies and expertise on this subject for the Council. The association of the Committee with the Council provides a channel through which the interests of women are represented in economic policy decisions.

Indeed, we are glad to observe that finally women and economics are being included in the same breath without a knowing wink by the male economist. One sign of this is the change in a passage found in various editions of Professor Paul Samuelson’s well-known economics textbook. Lamenting the popular reaction to the results of rationing, Professor Samuelson wrote in his first edition (1948):

Of course, there are always a few women and soapbox orators, who are longer on intuition than brains and who blame their troubles on the mechanism of rationing itself rather than on the shortage.

In the seventh edition (1967), we find soapbox orders dropped and the sentence is changed to:

Of course, there are always a few women and cranks, longer on intuition than brains, who blame their troubles on the mechanism of rationing itself rather than on the shortage.

By the liberated eighth edition (1970) he writes:

Of course, there are always some cranky customers, longer on intuition than brains, who blame their troubles on the mechanism of rationing itself rather than on the shortage.

So by 1970 “women” had disappeared from that rather slighting reference.

We have asked to insert into the record chapter 4 of the 1973 economic report. I would like here simply to talk about a few highlights of the chapter and primarily to report on some additional information and analysis that we have been able to acquire and develop since the economic report…

[…]

Source: United States. Congress. Ninety-Third Congress, First Session. Joint Economic Committee. Economic Problems of Women: Hearings, Part 1 (July 10, 11, and 12, 1973), p. 33.

[…]

Representative Widnall.  Mr. Samuelson, you infer in your statement and in your chapter on discrimination in the new edition of your textbook that the economic problems of women are due to “confinement to a limited group of industries and occupations within those industries.”

Could you explain what other factors you theorize to be significant in creating the female-male differential in that field?

Mr. Samuelson. We have learned about some of the detailed studies that are made to break down the different factors that explain an obviously large differential. It seems to me that these studies are excellent, the studies done by the Council of Economic Advisors, in comparison with earlier councils. It seems to me that we need more of them. But they must not have a soporific effect upon us, because, as in the case of all discrimination, there is a self-fulfilling and a self-perpetuating circle involved in discrimination. Women have less experience than men, and therefore you explain away the differential. But you have to ask yourself. “Why is the world run in such a way that the women get less experience for the good jobs?” A white male apparently is what all of Darwinian evolution has set out to create. Out of the slime came DNA, and then a backbone or something of a backbone was created, and then humans came down from the trees, and all this to create a white male. For, by census analysis of my colleague, Prof. Robert Hall, the only group who get automatic advances with age in the community, let’s say, after the age of 25, 27, 29, are white males. Women don’t get it, whether they are white or black. Black men don’t get it.

There is little good reason for a woman to have continuity in the labor force. She is given a rotten job by and large; then she leaves; and when she comes back, she again gets a rotten job. For a man, it is usually different. Only this last recession was a recession which hit MIT graduates and other professionals. As my suburban neighbors said while they were polishing their cars, why it’s people like us who have been thrown out of work. For a long time prior to that, all they had done was go through the coffee breaks and funeral by funeral move up the promotion and salary ladder. Now, that does not happen to the rest of the community. That is why, when I do an analysis of wage variance, or when Prof. Mincer does it, we pick up these same facts of discrimination once again, yes, women lack capital. The curse of the poor is their poverty. They lack human capital. Human capital is the ability to earn a large amount of money. And if you haven’t got it, you don’t earn a large amount of money. These are all attitude conditioned.

Let me give an example. It used to be said – I don’t know what the full truth was – that Jews had a bad occupational outlook in engineering. There was said to be great discrimination against them. There were very few Jews in engineering. And it was said, they are really not fitted for it. They don’t like work for pay, they like to be their own boss, probably lending money at high interest rates, and other such nonsense. And then a great change came. After World War II, in contrast to after World War I, go out to Route 128, or to Pasadena or the bay area, or Seattle, and you find that suddenly these people who previously had no human capital in that engineering-science line, no wish for it, no proclivity, no talent, they turned out to be, I would say, well represented in any random sample.

Attitude becomes self-reinforcing, and the statistics then prove for you what you already know, if you understand the attitudes involved.

So we are only talking about the visible peak of the iceberg of custom and discrimination. There have to be great changes. A 1-year change in legislation of course is only the beginning of a very long process.

 

Source: United States. Congress. Ninety-Third Congress, First Session. Joint Economic Committee. Economic Problems of Women: Hearings, Part 1 (July 10, 11, and 12, 1973), pp. 66-67.

_______________________________

 Addendum from a 1964 Oral History regarding the Council of Economic Advisers &c.

Thanks to a tip from Paul Samuelson’s biographer, Roger Backhouse, we have the following Samuelson quote that is probably as much a wise-crack aimed at a President who would appear to have confused home-economics with economics as it is an example of the way even liberal M.I.T. economists expressed themselves in the men’s locker-room. 

Samuelson. “…President Johnson made some reference to how a consumer-minded woman might be a good member of the Federal Reserve. Do you remember that, at one of the press conferences that he had? It seemed to me that in the first place one of the big issues will always be whether there will be undue concern over inflation. Women are very estimable but the Federal Reserve is not necessarily the best place for them and a consumer-minded woman would not be what the economists would generally…” [Samuelson was cut off here and the interview moved to a different topic]

Source:  Council of Economic Advisers Oral History Interview (Interviewer: Joseph Pechman. Interviewed: Walter Heller, Kermit Gordon, James Tobin, Gardner Ackley, Paul Samuelson)–JFK#1, August 1, 1964, pp. 365-6.

Categories
Chicago Economists Funny Business

Chicago. HMS Pinafore parody about Milton Friedman

What is a faculty-student party without skits and songs in which popular texts are given a good burlesque once over? An even duller affair to be sure.

I am the first to admit that Economics in the Rear-View Mirror is a pretty dry boutique blog. Even my occasional attempts to liven things up are bound to fall flat for those who have not endured the rigors of graduate education in the dismal science. But in the genuine interest of preserving artifacts of graduate education in economics past, I have already included Professor William Parker’s hit parody of the hymn “Rock of Ages”, originally performed at a Yale skit party and later in 1976 at the Adam Smith Roast organized by M.I.T. graduate students of economics. This posting now adds a text (authorship unknown…any claimants out there?) from the University of Chicago. 

“A good parody is a fine amusement, capable of amusing and instructing the most sensible and polished minds; the burlesque is a miserable buffoonery which can only please the populace.” (translation from “Parodie” in Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, 12:73–74 (Paris, 1765)). 

Readers may judge for themselves where this artifact falls in the spectrum running from “good parody” to “miserable buffoonery”.

Milton Friedman kept one folder in his files dedicated to humor from University of Chicago skits and student publications. The following burlesque aimed at Milton Friedman himself was considered good enough in Chicago that it was recycled at least once. Both versions in the Friedman folder are undated and I welcome blog visitors to express their opinions as to which version might have preceded the other (with explanation).

For those who don’t know the original, here is a video clip of “When I was a Lad” from the operetta H.M.S. Pinafore by Gilbert and Sullivan.

_____________________________________

If you find this posting interesting, here is the complete list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have assembled. You can subscribe to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror below. There is also an opportunity for comment following each posting….

_____________________________________

Version 1:

MEMBER OF THE FACULTY
(to the tune of “When I was a lad” from PINAFORE)

 

When I was a lad I served a term
Under the tutelage of A. F. Burns.
I read my Marshall completely through
From beginning to the end and then backward, too.
I read my Marshall so carefully that now I am professor at the U. of C.
(He read his Marshall so carefully that now he is professor at the U. of C.)

I learned the philosophy of “as if”
And now everything appears relatif.
Of exegesis I obtained such a grip
That soon I was granted a fellowship.
Oh, such a good fellow you never did see, so now I am professor at the U. of C.
(Oh, such a good fellow you never did see, so now I am professor at the U. of C.)

Since products all do clearly compete
From automobiles to babies sweet,
The very existence of monopoly
I explained away as sophistry.
This sophistry is so good for me, that now I am professor at the U. of C.
(This sophistry is so good for he, that now he is professor at the U. of C.)

Of Keynesians I can make mincemeat;
Their battered arguments now line the street.
I get them in their weakest assumption,
“What do you mean by consumption function?”
They never gave an answer that satisfied me, so now I am professor at the U. of C.
(They never gave an answer that satisfied he, so now he is professor at the U. of C.)

Of laissez-faire I am the champ,
Outstanding member of the liberal camp.
With social zeal I never have burned;
With feasibility I’m not concerned.
This ivory tower so suited me, that now I am professor at the U. of C.
(This ivory tower so suited he, that now he is professor at the U. of C.)

Now students all, whoever you may be,
If you want to climb the academic tree,
Stick close to your texts and never disagree
And you all may be professors at the U. of C.
(Stick close to your texts and never disagree
And you all may be professors at the U. of C.)

____________________________________________

Version 2:

MEMBER OF THE FACULTY:
(to the tune of “When I was a Lad” from H.M.S. Pinafore)

When I was a lad I served a term
Under the tutelage of A. F. Burns
I studied my Marshall completely thru
From beginning to the end and then backwards too
>
I studied my Marshall so carefully that now I am professor at the U. of C.

Chorus: (He studied his Marshall so carefully that now he is professor at the U. of C.)

[4 beats]

I learned the philosophy of “AS IF”
And now everything appears relatif
Of exegesis I obtained such a grip
That soon I was granted a fellowship
>
Oh, such a good fellow you never did see, so now I am prof. at the U. of C.

Chorus: (Oh, such ….)

Since every product does compete
From an automobile to a baby sweet
The very existence of monopoly
I explain away as sophistry
>
This sophistry is so good for me that now I am teaching at the U. of C.

Chorus: (This sophistry ….)

Of Keynesians I can make mincemeat
Their battered arguments now litter the street
I hit them in their weakest assumption
“What do you mean by consumption function?”
>
They never gave an answer that satisfied me, so now I am prof. at the U. of C.

Chorus: (They never….)

Of laissez-faire I am the champ
The outstanding member of the liberal camp
With social zeal I never have burned
With feasibility I am not concerned
X>
This ivory tower so suited me that now I am professor at the U. of C.

Chorus: (This ivory ….

Now students all whoever you may be
If you want to climb the academic tree
Stick close to your texts and never disagree
And you all may be professors at the U. of C.

Chorus: (And you …)

 

Source: Hoover Institution Archives, Milton Friedman Papers, Box 79, Folder 6 “University of Chicago, Miscellaneous”.

Image Source: HMS Pinafore performance by the Bryn Mawr Glee Club (April 1915).

 

 

Categories
Chicago Economists Yale

Chicago. James Tobin Autobiographical Letter from Faculty Meeting, 1950

The following autobiographical remarks by James Tobin were circulated among the University of Chicago faculty before its Monday, February 13, 1950 meeting. After discussing the “Old Business” of the Committee Report on Ph. D. Thesis requirements and Departmental policy on library acquisitions, a third item added by hand to the mimeographed agenda was “C. Appointment (Tobin)”. 

Cf. the Search Committee report on Tobin from Columbia University, also from 1950.

Robert Dimand has recently published the book James Tobin in the Palgrave Macmillan series Great Thinkers in Economics.

A list of major works and Tobin-related links are at the Gonseca History of Economic Thought Website.

_____________________________________

If you find this posting interesting, here is the complete list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have assembled. You can subscribe to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror below. There is also an opportunity for comment following each posting….

_____________________________________

TO: Professor T. W. Schultz

DATE: January 27, 1950

FROM: J. Marschak

 

Following our conversation on Tuesday, I attach 20 copies of the biography of James Tobin, with the request that they be circulated among the members of the Department.

Please note that Tobin’s article “Tax Measures to Encourage Saving” has been published in the meantime in the recent issue of the American Economic Review.

Sincerely yours,

Jacob Marschak

 

 

JAMES TOBIN. (Letter of April 2, 1949)

I was born March 5, 1918, in Champaign, Illinois, attended the local schools and the University of Illinois High School. I went to Harvard College on a National Scholarship and was graduated in 1939. I majored in economics in college, and did two years of graduate work in economics at Harvard 1939-41. I worked at Washington at OPACS and WPB from June 1941 to April 1942, when I went into the Navy and served as a line officer on a destroyer. I was “separated” in January 1946 and returned to Harvard to write a thesis. I was a part-time teaching fellow until I received the degree of Ph. D. I am married and have one child, aged 8 months.

I have indicated my training in economics in the previous paragraph: it is better than my mathematical background. In college I had two years of calculus, and as a graduate student I took a half-year course in mathematical statistics and a half-year course in mathematical economics. One of my chief occupations as a Junior Fellow has been to try to improve my mathematical equipment, by attending some courses and by independent work. I have studied advanced calculus, probability, differential equations, modern algebra.

Publications: “Note on the Money Wage Problem,” QJE, LV, 1941, 508-15. “The Role of Statistical Forecasts in Planning for Defense,” Public Policy, III, 1942, 197-223. “Liquidity Preference and Monetary Policy,” Rev. Ec. Stat., XXIX, 1947, 124-131. “Rejoinder” (to Clark Warburton, on same subject), ibid., XXX, 1948, 314-317. “Money Wage Rates and Employment,” in The New Economics, 572-587. “The Fallacies of Lord Keynes’ ‘General Theory’” (By Jaccques Rueff): Comment,” QJE, LXII, 1948, 763-770. A note on “Tax Measures to Encourage Saving” will be published in the AER later this year.

My thesis was entitled “A Theoretical and Statistical Analysis of Consumer Saving.” In it I attempted to derive a saving function by using both budget data and time series—a device suggested by you—and to bring in variables other than income: asset holdings, capital gains, price level. An article based on the thesis is promised for the projected volume in honor of John H. Williams. I am very much interested in the problems involved in obtaining statistical demand functions and am at present completing work on one for food, again using both budget data and time series.

 

Source: Hoover Institution Archives, Milton Friedman Papers, Box 79, Folder 2 “University of Chicago Minutes, Economics Department, 1949-1953”.

Image Source: Yale University Manuscripts & Archives. Digital Images Database. “James Tobin in war uniform (1945-December)”.

Categories
Chicago Economists Harvard

Harvard. T.N. Carver’s link to US publicist of Protocols of the Elders of Zion, 1921

Today’s posting assembles a few items from the garden of internet archival delights that I stumbled across last night.  

I’ll share in the actual sequence of “discoveries” just as one damn thing led to another. I’ll also lightly annotate with an indication of what I was thinking at each step of the way.

(1) The evening began, as it often does, with a refreshing dive into the Hathitrust.org digital archive, this time in search of artifacts related to the reception of/reaction to Marxian economics in American colleges and universities.

The first artifact that caught my eye (i.e. one that had either not come up before or I overlooked in previous searches) had the title “Making Socialists Out of College Students” by one Woodworth Clum, Western Reserve University (Class of 1900). The pamphlet had no explicit date but can be safely dated ca. 1921. The cover-art (posted above) from the San Francisco Bulletin by Ralph O. Yardley was simply irresistible. The purpose of the pamphlet was to name names of “pink” professors, i.e. socialist fellow-travelers and warn of their bad influence on their young students. Clum wrote: “…when I find a slow poison being secretly and successfully injected into our body politic through the class rooms, I do worry—and so should you.”

_____________________________________

If you find this posting interesting, here is the complete list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have assembled. You can subscribe to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror below. There is also an opportunity for comment following each posting….

_____________________________________

 

[Woodward Clum identifies professors “valiantly fighting the socialist trend”. ]

            You must not get the impression that the teaching of socialism dominates in the sociological departments [“social science departments” is more likely Clum’s meaning] of our American universities,—but its teaching is going on apace. The fact that so many professors have been discharged from leading universities for their unsound economic theories is evidence itself that the presidents and boards of trustees of those universities are keenly alive to the developments. It is the duty of all real Americans to strengthen the hands of those professors who are valiantly fighting the socialist trend. Hunt them up in your own community—and help them defend America.

Among such thorough American professors who are doing a heroic work at this time are Professor T. N. Carver of the Department of Economics, Harvard University, and Professor Laurence Laughlin, Emeritus Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. Professor Carver has written a very clear preface to Brasol’s “Socialism versus Civilization,” published by Scribners and which should be included in every’: American library. Professor Laughlin has recently published ten pamphlets, exposing not only the fallacy of socialism but also presenting some very excellent suggestions concerning . present industrial difficulties.

When we say that parents of boys and girls attending: school in America should ascertain what sort of economics their children are being taught, it is in the hope that support and encouragement will be given to those educators who are endeavoring to develop sound American economics—just as much as to expose the teaching of economic fallacy.

 

Source: Woodward Clum, Making Socialists Out of College Students. Los Angeles: 1921.

____________________________________

(2) Clum’s pamphlet reminds me of the first book of the young William Buckley, God and Man at Yale, that warned the world in general and Yale alumni in particular of the corrupting influences of atheist and/or Keynesian professors. Since both Thomas Nixon Carver (Harvard) and J. Laurence Laughlin (Chicago) have appeared multiple times in Economics in the Rear-View Mirror, my next step was to run down the books cited by Clum.

Boris L. Brasol. Socialism vs. Civilization with an Introduction by T. N. Carver, Professor of Political Economy at Harvard University. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1920.

J. Laurence Laughlin. Tracts for the Times: Labor and Wages. New York: Scribner’s Magazine for March, 1920.

I The Solution of the Labor Problem
II Management
III The Hope for Labor Unions
IV Monopoly of Labor
V Is Labor a Commodity?
VI Socialism a Philosophy of Failure
VII Wages and Prices
VIII The British Industrial Crisis
IX British and American Labor Problems
X Extravagance

____________________________________

(3) It is patently obvious from the slightest familiarity with the writings of Carver and Laughlin that both were highly critical of socialist doctrine so that the new questions were (a) who was this anti-socialist, Boris Brasol, for whom Thomas N. Carver wrote an introduction, and (b) what was the nature of their professional relationship? From the tone of the introduction there is really no indication of a particularly close relationship between the Carver and Brasol. Carver merely provided anti-socialist boiler-plate, presumably intended as a favor for a good cause. 

And so who was Boris Brasol?  Archive.org provides two documents identified as having been obtained under the Freedom of Information Act from the U. S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI):

Freedom of Information Act Documents.

Brasol, Boris-HQ-1 ; Brasol, Boris-HQ-2

Only one plot-spoiler from these FOIA documents now. What struck my eye was that Boris Brasol was clearly identified by a reliable source as having played a role in the propagation of the English translation of the anti-semitic, forged “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” in the United States.

____________________________________

(4) Not just taking the FBI’s word for it, I found that the Anti-Defamation League (http://www.adl.org) identifies Boris Brasol as the publicist behind the publication of the Protocols:

American Debut

The Protocols were publicized in America by Boris Brasol, a former Czarist prosecutor. Auto magnate Henry Ford was one of those who responded to Brasol’s conspiratorial fantasies. “The Dearborn Independent,” owned by Ford, published an American version of the Protocols between May and September of 1920 in a series called ‘The International Jew: the World’s Foremost Problem.” The articles were later republished in book form with half a million copies in circulation in the United States, and were translated into several foreign languages.

By 1927 Ford had repudiated the “International Jew,” but hundreds of thousands of people around the world had been encouraged by his initial endorsement to accept the Protocols as genuine.

 

Source: Anti-Defamation League website.

____________________________________

At the end of the day I have to admit that I am not sure how much one should fault the economist Thomas Nixon Carver for having had any dealings with someone like Boris Brasol. At the least we can count this as a case of a failure of intellectual due diligence on Carver’s part.  Maybe Socialism vs. Civilization is not a bad book, but seeing where it has come from, I’ll leave reading it for now to historical experts mining the lunatic fringe of the American political right.

 

 

 

Categories
Chicago Economists

Chicago. James Buchanan’s Dissertation Outline, 1947

James McGill Buchanan, Jr.’s Ph.D. in economics at the University of Chicago was awarded in the summer quarter of 1948. The title of his dissertation was “Fiscal Equity in a Federal State”. From the Milton Friedman papers at the Hoover Institution we have the following transcription of the mimeographed dissertation outline submitted by Buchanan that was discussed in the economics department faculty meeting of October 24, 1947. The agenda of that faculty meeting along with Milton Friedman’s handwritten additions (in square brackets) are included at the end of this posting. The procedure for admission to Ph.D, candidacy is described in a 1949 memo written by Milton Friedman to members of the Department’s Ph.D. Thesis Committee.

_____________________________________

If you find this posting interesting, here is the complete list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have assembled. You can subscribe to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror below. There is also an opportunity for comment following each posting….

_____________________________________

 

2. Present Procedure
[1949, University of Chicago, Economics]

a. Admission to candidacy. As I understand it, we have no very formalized procedure or requirements. Students typically discuss possible thesis topics with one or more faculty members, construct outlines of the projected thesis, ordinarily get the reaction of one or more faculty members to it, revise it accordingly, and then formally submit the thesis topic and outline to the Department for approval and admission to candidacy. The submitted outline is occasionally extremely detailed, occasionally very general, and is sometimes accompanied by a general statement of objective and purpose, sources of material for the thesis, etc.

[…]

Source: Undated memo (early 1949) written by Milton Friedman to members of the Committee on Ph.D. Thesis Outlines and Requirements from Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman Papers, Box 79, Folder 5 “University of Chicago Minutes, Ph.D. Thesis Committee”.

_____________________________________

Dissertation Outline, James M. Buchanan, October 1947

J. M. Buchanan

EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS IN INTERGOVERNMENTAL FISCAL ADJUSTMENT

I. The Problem —

A. The federal political structure

1. Federalism in political theory. Varying degrees of dual sovereignty. The question of the finality of a federal structure. Is it a final point in political organization or merely a stage in an evolutionary process?

2. The historical development of federalism in the United States. Trends toward centralization and opposing tendencies. The expanding role of government on the whole. The expanding sphere of activity of the central as opposed to subordinate units. Projection of future trends.

3. The case for federalism as a permanent political structure in the United States. Its value as a means of a division of power, as a protection against a tyranny of the majority, etc.

4. Statement of viewpoint on federalism taken in this study.

B. The national economy —

1. The historical development of the expanding scope of the economy. The extension of the market, the trend toward economic centralization, in the sense that the nation has become the unit which defines the area of the allocation of resources.

2. The extent to which the economy is national — increasing specialization, increased resource mobility, etc.

C. Conflicts which arise in the financing of government due to the superimposition of a federated political structure on a national economy.

1. The heterogeneity of the subordinate units of government. Resource heterogeneity. Cultural, social differences. Income disparities leading to differentials in tax burdens and service standards. The basic fiscal inequity inherent in such a structure.

II.            A Theoretical Solution –

A. What is fiscal equity in such a structure?

1. Definition and limitation. For present purposes concept narrowed to that of “equal treatment for equals and unequal treatment for unequals”. Abstraction from any attempt to determine equity as between unequals since such a concept not needed for problems considered.

B. Application of the concept —

1. Necessity of benefit calculation for any determination of equity among individuals in separate subordinate governmental units. Difficulties in benefit calculation, aside from special cases. Assumption of per capita general expenditure as best measure of benefit.

2. Definition of the “fiscal residuum” or “net tax” – Net value of services available less net value of taxes paid. Considerations of “government” as the total of all layers in structure, federal, state, and local.

C. Arithmetical Examples –

Examples illustrating possible application of the equity criteria in hypothetical cases. Illustration that “equal treatment for equals and unequal treatment for unequals” will impose geographical financial neutrality upon the individual.

III.           A study of Comparative Fiscal Treatment of Similarly Situated Individuals in High Income and Low Income States –

A. Selection of states considered – one with high per capita income, one with low. (Tentatively have selected New York and Mississippi.)

B. Assumptions and abstractions –

1. Assumption of the State-Local fiscal problem as solved or non-existent. Application of criterion to 2-level structure only. State-local considered as one unit. Seek only interstate differentials, not intrastate here.

2. Assumption of money income as measure of economic position. Abstraction from non-pecuniary advantages of geographical location. Individuals considered in similar economic circumstances if money income, pproperty value, same. Physical property same. Family obligations same.

C. Selection of hypothetical individuals to be compared. Determination of income ranges to be covered.

D.            Expenditure pattern of individuals considered.

1. Proportion of income saved, spent at various income levels.

2. Distribution of expenditure at various income levels.

3. Property holdings at different income levels.

E. Determination of tax burdens of individuals considered.

1. Examination of tax structures of states in question.

2. Assumptions as to final incidence of state taxes. More than one set of assumptions can be made and results collocated.

3. Tax burden of hypothetical individuals in each income group in each state can be determined by application of assumptions as to incidence to expenditure patterns.

4. Indication that validity of the study does not depend upon validity of the assumptions as to incidence since no attempt is made to compare dissimilarly situated individuals. (Such a comparison will necessarily show in the computation, however, and for this reason the assumptions should be as realistic as possible.)

F. Determination of value of benefits of government service provided —

1. Necessity to use per capita general expenditure as best benefit measure.

2. Use of value input only not value output. Value output will differ as administrative efficiency of state varies.

G. Calculation of fiscal residua of similarly situated individuals considered —

1. Possibility of abstracting from federal taxes and expenditures since similarly situated individuals supposedly treated similarly by federal government.

H.            Calculation of the interstate differential in fiscal residua of the hypothetical similarly situated individuals considered.

IV.           Existing and proposed attempts at solution.

A. Vertical Integration

1. Examination of the various proposals made to integrate and unify the whole financial structure; plans for realignment of functions, central collection, local administration, complete centralization, etc.

B. Horizontal Integration and Coordination –

1. Readjustment of geographical boundaries, consolidation of non-efficient units. The “regionalism” approach.

C. The grant-in-aid as the adjusting device.

1. The existing structure of grants-in-aid in the United States – a short summary of the more prominent characteristics of the system.

2. Proposals for extension of the system –

a.            Further use of the conditional grant

(1)  Merits of the conditional grant

(2)  Drawbacks

(a)  Effects on budgetary independence of subordinate units.

(b) Central direction and interference.

b.            The concept of a “minimum standard”

(1)  Idea of the “national interest”

(2)  Attempts at defining “minimum standards”

(3)  Violation of equity criteria

(4)  Federal assumption of a function.

D.            Realistic Appraisal of Various Proposals from Standpoint of Political and Administrative Feasibility.

V.            Policy Implications of the Criterion of Equity Proposed in this study.

A. The practicability of direct application.

1. Difficulty of measurement

2. Political and administrative barriers.

B. Effect of the Acceptance of the Theoretical Validity of the Criterion upon Practical Policy.

1. Early elimination of matching requirements in grant-in-aid distribution.

2. Early abandonment of the concept of “minimum standards”.

3. Broadening of purpose for which grants are made.

4. Further extension of so-called “equalization” grants.

5. Elimination of the idea of “charity” in intergovernmental fiscal adjustment.

6. Greater federal reliance on the income tax as a source of revenue.

C. The proposals of the Canadian Royal Commission and Possible Application of Similar Proposals to the United States.

VI.           Possible Objections to the Equity Criterion Proposed and its Policy Implications.

A. Theoretical Objections

1. The central government as the adjusting unit.

2. The inclusion of fiscal treatment by government in the criteria for the optimum allocation of resources.

3. The nation as the economic unit.

B. Administrative Objections.

1. Violation of principle of fiscal responsibility.

VII.          Conclusion.

____________________________

 

Department of Economics
AGENDA
Friday, October 24, 1947, at 3:30 p.m. in SS424

I. Students’ Business

A. Admission to Candidacy for the Ph.D. Degree

James M. Buchanan

Subject: Equity Considerations in Intergovernmental Fiscal Adjustment.
Field: Government Finance
Committee: [Blough, chairman, Perloff, Knight]

Henry Woldon Hewetson

Subject: An Examination of the Distance Principle of Railway Freight rate making with references to Canadian Conditions.
Field: [Transportation]
Committee: [Sorrell, Koopmans, Friedman]

[Inserted:

Harriett D. Hudson.

Progressive Mine Workers of America
Committee: Douglas, ch; Nef; (illegible name) Lewis]

Norman Maurice Kaplan

Subject: Models for Socialist Economic Planning
Field:
Committee: [Marschak, ch.; ch. Harris; A. P. Lerner; Friedman

Raymond H. McEvoy

Subject: Effects of Federal Reserve Policies, 1929-36
Field: Money, Banking, and Monetary Policy
Committee: [Mints, Hamilton, Metzler]

Wallace E. Ogg

Subject: A Study of Maladjustment of Resources in Southern Iowa
Field: Agricultural Economics
Committee: [Johnson, Hardin (pol sci), Lewis]

B. Admission to candidacy for the Alternative Master’s Degree (without thesis.)

Raymond H. McEvoy

C. Admission to candidacy for the Regular Master’s Degree

Peter Senn

Subject: Federal subsidization of the Banks
Field:
Committee:

D. Petitions

Guy Black—for permission to substitute work in Mathematics for the regular requirement of a second foreign language.

Keith O. Campbell—for approval to take Political Science as one of the fields for the Ph.D. Degree.

Gershon Cooper—to substitute the following courses in math. for the German language requirement for the Ph.D. Degree: Mathematics 216, 220, and 228.

Bernard Gordon—to substitute a mathematical sequence of Calculus I and Calculus II in place of one of the language requirements for the Ph.D. Degree.

Dale A. Knight—to use Political science as one field for the Ph.D. Degree.

Chih-wei Lee—to take English as the second language.

[John K. Lewis]

II. Encyclopedia Britannica Economic Articles

III. Language requirements for Foreign students.

IV. Report of Master’s Degree Committee, Spring and Summer, 1947

V. New Business

 

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman Papers. Box 79, Folder “79.1 University of Chicago Minutes Economics Department 1946-1949”.

Image Source: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Biography of James M. Buchanan.

 

Categories
Economists Harvard

Joseph Schumpeter on Methodological Individualism, 1908

Thanks to V. L. Elliot, a member of the faculty of the National Intelligence University in Washington, D.C., Economics in the Rear-View Mirror has been provided the following English translation of Joseph Schumpeter’s chapter on methodological individualism from his 1908 book Das Wesen und Hauptinhalt der theoretischen Nationalökonomie.

1908_Schumpeter_Ch6_MethodologicalIndividualism_1980EngTranslation

Ellliot writes:

[The chapter] was published in 1980 with the permission of E. B. Schumpeter, the author’s widow by an Institute in Belgium that subsequently ceased operations.  The publishing run appears to have been a short one.  Thanks to the great determination and professionalism of a wonderful librarian, Ms. Denise Campbell, I was able to acquire the PDF after a ten year search that began when I read Professor Klein’s contribution to a series of volumes on the work of Hayek (Hayek wrote the introduction to the pamphlet).

Professor Peter Klein described the book and pamphlet that is contained in the PDF file on his web site in 2009:

“The book made quite a splash in the German-speaking world and Schumpeter received many requests for an English translation, but he wouldn’t allow it, or to have the book reprinted in German. In 1980 a single chapter, “Methodological Individualism,” was translated and published in pamphlet form, with a short introduction by Hayek…. The pamphlet has been very difficult to get until now.”

In the meantime an English translation of the entire book by Bruce A. McDaniel has been published as The Nature and Essence of Economic Theory by Transaction Publishers in 2010.

_____________________________________

If you find this posting interesting, here is the complete list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have assembled. You can subscribe to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror below. There is also an opportunity for comment following each posting….

_____________________________________

Categories
Berkeley Chicago Columbia Economists

Columbia. Wesley C. Mitchell’s Methodological Thoughts, 1928.

The following excerpts from a typed copy of a letter from Wesley C. Mitchell to John Maurice Clark dated August 9, 1928 come from Mitchell’s papers with a hand-written note at the top of the first page, “Revised Feb 11, 1929”. The copy was made by Clark and perhaps given to Mitchell for further comment.

Mitchell begins with a longish response to a question posed by Clark regarding Mitchell’s own professional revealed preference for empirical investigation. This is followed by shorter responses to questions about the origin of his interest in business cycles, the relationship of “analytical description” to “causal theory”, and finally Mitchell’s confessed own perceived shortcomings in the use of statistical techniques for trend and seasonal analysis.

_____________________________________

If you find this posting interesting, here is the complete list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have assembled. You can subscribe to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror below. There is also an opportunity for comment following each posting….

_____________________________________

Letter from Wesley C. Mitchell to John Maurice Clark
9 August 1928 (excerpt)

[…]

            Concerning the inclination you note to prefer concrete problems and methods to abstract ones, my hypothesis is that it got started, perhaps manifested itself would be more accurate, in childish theological discussions with my grand aunt. She was the best of Baptists, and knew exactly how the Lord had planned the world. God is love; he planned salvation; he ordained immersion; his immutable word left no doubt about the inevitable fate of those who did not walk in the path he had marked. Hell is no stain upon his honor, no inconsistency with love.—I adored the logic and thought my grand aunt flinched unworthily when she expressed hopes that some back-stairs method might be found of saving from everlasting flame the ninety and nine who are not properly baptized. But I also read the Bible and began to cherish private opinions about the character of the potentate in Heaven. Also I observed that his followers on earth did not seem to get what was promised them here and now. I developed an impish delight in dressing up logical difficulties which my grand aunt could not dispose of. She always slipped back into the logical scheme, and blinked the facts in which I came to take a proprietary interest.

I suppose there is nothing better as a teething-ring for a child who likes logic in the garden variety of Christian theology. I cut my eye-teeth on it with gusto and had not entirely lost interest in that exercise when I went to college.

There I began studying philosophy and economics about the same time. I found no difficulty in grasping the differences between the great philosophical systems as they were presented by our text-books and our teachers. Economic theory was easier still. Indeed, I thought the successive systems of economics were rather crude affairs compared with the subtleties of the metaphysicians. Having run the gamut from Plato to T. H. Green (as undergraduates do) I felt the gamut from Quesnay to Marshall was a minor theme. The technical part of the theory was easy. Give me premises and I could spin speculations by the yard. Also I knew that my “deductions” were futile. It seemed to me that people who took seriously the sort of articles which were then appearing in the Q.J.E. might have a better time if they went in for metaphysics proper.

Meanwhile I was finding something really interesting in philosophy and in economics. John Dewey was giving courses under all sorts of titles and every one of them dealt with the same problem – how we think. I was fascinated by his view of the place which logic holds in human behavior. It explained the economic theorists. The thing to do was to find out how they came to attack certain problems; why they took certain premises as a matter of course; why they did not consider all the permutations and variance of those problems which were logically possible; why their contemporaries thought their conclusions were significant. And, if one wanted to try his own hand at constructive theorizing, Dewey’s notion pointed the way. It is a misconception to suppose that consumers guide their course by ratiocination – they don’t think except under stress. There is no way of deducing from certain principles what they will do, just because their behavior is not itself rational. One has to find out what they do. That is a matter of observation, which the economic theorist had taken all too lightly. Economic theory became a fascinating subject – the orthodox types particularly – when one began to take the mental operations of the theorists as the problem, instead of taking their theories seriously.

Of course Veblen fit fitted perfectly into this set of notions. What drew me to him was his artistic side. I had a weakness for paradoxes – Hell set up by the God of love. But Veblen was a master developing beautiful subtleties, while I was a tyro emphasizing the obvious. He did have such a good time with the theory of the leisure class and then with the preconceptions of economic theory! And the economists reacted with such bewildered soberness! There was a man who really could play with ideas! If one wanted to indulge in the game of spinning theories who could match his skill and humor? But if anything were needed to convince me that the standard procedure of orthodox economics could meet no scientific tests, it was that Veblen got nothing more certain by his dazzling performances with another set of premises. His working conceptions of human nature might be a vast improvement; he might have uncanny insights; but he could do no more than make certain conclusions plausible – like the rest. How important were the factors he dealt with and the factors he scamped was never established.

That was a sort of problem which was beginning to concern me. William Hill set me a course paper on “Wool Growing and the Tariff.” I read a lot of the tariff speeches and got a new side-light on the uses to which economic theory is adapted, and the ease with which it is brushed aside on occasion. Also I wanted to find out what really had happened to wool growers as a result of protection. The obvious thing to do was to collect and analyze the statistical data. If at the end I had demonstrated no clear-cut conclusion, I at least knew how superficial were the notions of the gentlemen who merely debated the tariff issue, whether in Congress or in academic quarters. That was my first “investigation” – I did it in the way which seemed obvious, following up the available materials as far as I could, and reporting what I found to be the “facts.” It’s not easy to see how any student assigned this topic could do much with it in any other way.

A brief introduction to English economic history by A. C. Miller, and unsystematic readings in anthropology instigated by Veblen reinforced the impressions I was getting from other sources. Everything Dewey was saying about how we think, and when we think, made these fresh material significant, and got fresh significance itself. Men had always deluded themselves, it appeared, with strictly logical accounts of the world and their own origin; they had always fabricated theories for their spiritual comfort and practical guidance which ran far beyond the realm of fact without straining their powers of belief. My grand aunt’s theology; Plato and Quesnay; Kant, Ricardo and Karl Marx; Cairnes and Jevons, even Marshall were much of a piece. Each system was tolerably self-consistent – as if that were a test of “truth”! There were realms in which speculation on the basis of assumed premises achieved real wonders; but they were realms in which one began frankly by cutting loose from the phenomena can observe. And the results were enormously useful. But that way of thinking seem to get good results only with reference to the simplest of problems, such as numbers and spatial relations yet men practice this type of thinking with reference to all types of problems which could not be treated readily on a matter-of-fact basis – creation, God, “just” prices in the middle ages, the Wealth of Nations in Adam Smith’s time, the distribution of incomes in Ricardo’s generation, the theory of equilibrium in my own day.

There seem to be one way of making real progress, slow, very slow, but tolerably sure. That was the way of natural science. I really knew nothing of science and had enormous respect for its achievements. Not the Darwinian type of speculation which was then so much in the ascendant – that was another piece of theology. But chemistry and physics. They had been built up not in grand systems like soap bubbles; but by patient processes of observation and testing – always critical testing – of the relations between the working hypotheses and the processes observed. There was plenty of need for rigorous thinking, indeed of thinking more precise than Ricardo achieved; but the place for it was inside the investigation so to speak – the place that mathematics occupied in physics as an indispensable tool. The problems one could really do something with in economics were problems in which speculation could be controlled.

That’s the best account I can give offhand of my predilection for the concrete. Of course it seems to me rather a predilection for problems one can treat with some approach to scientific method. The abstract is to be made use of it every turn, as a handmaiden to help hew the wood and draw the water. I loved romances – particularly William Morris’ tales of lands that never were – and utopias, and economic systems, of which your father’s when I came to know it seemed the most beautiful; but these were objects of art, and I was a work man who wanted to become a scientific worker, who might enjoy the visions which we see in mountain mists but who trusted only what we see in the light of common day.

* * * *

            Besides the spice of rationalizing which doubtless vitiates my recollections – uncontrolled recollections at that – this account worries me by the time it is taking, yours as well as mine. I’ll try to answer the other questions concisely.

Business cycles turned up as a problem in the course of the studies which I began with Laughlin. My first book on the greenbacks dealt only with the years of rapid depreciation and spasmodic war-time reaction. I knew that I had not gotten to the bottom of the problems and wanted to go on. So I compiled that frightful second book as an apparatus for a more thorough analysis. By the time it was finished I had learned to see the problem in a larger way. Veblen’s paper on “Industrial and Pecuniary Employments” had a good deal to do with opening my eyes. Presently I found myself working on the system of prices and its place in modern economic life. Then I got hold of Simmel’s Theorie des Geldes – a fascinating book. But Simmel, no more than Veblen, knew the relative importance of the factors he was working with. My manuscript grew – it lies unpublished to this day. As it grew in size it became more speculative. I was working away from any solid foundation – having a good time, but sliding gaily over abysses I had not explored. One of the most formidable was the recurring readjustments of prices, which economists treated apart from their general theories of value, under the capitation “Crises.” I had to look into the problem. It proved to be susceptible of attack by methods which I thought reliable. The result was the big California monograph. I thought of it as an introduction to economic theory.

* * * *

            This conception is responsible for the chapter on “Modern Economic Organization.” I don’t remember precisely at what stage the need of such a discussion dawned upon me. But I have to do everything a dozen times. Doubtless I wrote parts of that chapter fairly early in other parts late as I found omissions in the light of the chapters on “The Rhythm of Business Activity.” Of course, I put nothing in which did not seem to me strictly pertinent to the understanding of the processes with which the volume dealt. That I did not cover the field very intelligently, even from my own viewpoint, appears from a comparison of the books published in 1913 and 1927. Doubtless before I am done with my current volume, I shall be passing a similar verdict upon the chapter as I left it last year.

* * * *

            As to the relation between my analytic description and “causal” theory I have no clear ideas – though I might develop some at need. To me it seems that I tried to follow through the inter-lacing processes involved in business expansion and contraction by the aid of everything I know, checking my speculations just as far as I can buy the data of observation. Among the things I “know” are the way in which economic activity is organized in business enterprises, and the way these enterprises are conducted for money profits. But that is not a simple matter which enables me to deduce certain results – or rather, to deduce results with certainty. There is much in the workings of business technique which I should never think of if I were not always turning back to observation. And I should not trust even my reasoning about what business men will do if I could not check it up. Some unverifiable suggestions do emerge; but I hope it is always clear that they are unverified. Very likely what I try to do is merely carrying out the requirements of John Stuart Mill’s “complete method.” But there is a great deal more passing back and forth between hypotheses and observation, each modifying and enriching the other, than I seem to remember in Mill’s version. Perhaps I do him injustice as a logician through default of memory; but I don’t think I do classical economics injustice when I say that it erred sadly in trying to think out a deductive scheme and then talked of verifying that. Until science has gotten to the stage of elaborating the details of an established body of theory – say finding a planet from the aberrations of orbits, or filling a gap in the table of elements – it is rash to suppose one can get an hypothesis which stands much chance of holding good except from a process of attempted verification, modification, fresh observation, and so on. (Of course, there is a good deal of commerce between most economic theorizing and personal observation of an irregular sort – that is what has given our theories their considerable measure of significance. But I must not go off into that issue.)

* * * *

           […] when writing the first book about business cycles I seem to have had no clear ideas about secular trends. The term does not appear to occur in the index. Seasonal variations appear to be mentioned only in connection with interest rates. Of course certain rough notions along these lines may be inferred; but not such definite ideas as would safeguard me against the errors you point out. What makes matters worse for me, I was behind the times in this respect. J. P. Norton’s Statistical Studies in the New York Money Market had come out in 1902. I ought to have known and make use made use of his work.

That is only one of several serious blemishes upon the statistical work in my 1913 volume. After Hourwich left Chicago, and that was before I got deep into economics, no courses were given on statistics in my time. I was blissfully ignorant of everything except the simplest devices. To this day I have remained an awkward amateur, always ready to invent some crude scheme for looking into anything I want to know about, and quite likely to be betrayed by my own apparatus. I shall die in the same sad state.

 

[…]

Ever yours,
Wesley C. Mitchell.
(Copy by J.M.C.)

 

Source: Columbia University Archives. Wesley Clair Mitchell Collection, Box 8 “Ch-Ec”, Folder “Clark, John Maurice: v.p., 8 Apr 1926 & 21 Apr 1927. To Wesley C. Mitchell 2 a.l.s. (with related material)”.

Image Source: Foundation for the Study of Cycles.

Categories
Berkeley Columbia Economists

Columbia Ph.D. and Berkeley Professor, Charles Adams Gulick

In his review essay on Alexander Gerschenkron’s Economic Backwardness in Historical Perspective, Albert Fishlow wrote: “a decisive point in [Gerschenkron’s] career, was the invitation from Charles Gulick, a Berkeley professor whom he had earlier helped in his research in Austria, to come to the United States. His acceptance marked the real beginning of his academic career that subsequently was to flourish over the rest of his life.”

Besides being the scholar who brought Gerschenkron to the U.S., Charles Adams Gulick had a life-long research interest in labor policy from his 1924 Columbia Ph.D. dissertation to the international bibliography on labor movements linked below. His two-volume work Austria From Habsburg to Hitler (1948), into which flowed some 12 months of intensive research and writing input from Alexander Gerschenkron, was “the great achievement of his scholarly career” according to the memorial note reproduced below.

_____________________________________

If you find this posting interesting, here is the complete list of “artifacts” from the history of economics I have assembled. You can subscribe to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror below. There is also an opportunity for comment following each posting….

_____________________________________

History and Theories of Working-Class Movements: A Select Bibliography. Compiled by Charles A. Gulick, Roy A. Ockert and Raymond J. Wallace. Bureau of Business and Economic Research and Institute of Industrial Relations, University of California, Berkeley, 1955. 392 pages.

______________________________

 

Charles Adams Gulick, Economics: Berkeley
1896-1984
Professor Emeritus

Charles Gulick was born and raised in Texas and had all his schooling there through the M.A. degree. The Texas influence on his speech and certain mannerisms of expression remained with him all his life. Certainly at the University of Texas he acquired key elements of his life-long economic and social philosophy. It was the Progressive era and he became committed to central themes of that movement–that the great aggregations of power must be controlled and humanized and that a larger measure of social justice must be won for the less privileged members of society. Not surprisingly, his first monograph, published in 1920 when he was 24, was on the subject, Open Shop vs. Closed Shop.

Having majored in modern European history for the B.A. and M.A. degrees in Texas, he moved to Columbia University to major in economics for the Ph.D., awarded in 1924. At Columbia, he became strongly influenced by the ideas and interests of Professor Henry Seager, a leading academic writer on the widely debated issue of what to do about the power of the large, rapidly growing industrial and financial corporations commonly known as trusts. Combining his growing interest in labor subjects with his interest in trust problems, Gulick’s doctoral dissertation was published as Labor Policy of the U.S. Steel Corporation. While serving as an instructor in Economics at Columbia, he continued to work with Seager and later co-authored with him a large volume on Trust and Corporation Problems. He also edited a volume of Seager’s essays.

Gulick joined the faculty of the Berkeley Department of Economics in 1926, where he served until his retirement in 1963. It was in the course of a trip to Germany for research purposes in 1930 that he almost by accident paid a visit to Vienna and acquired the interest in Austria that led him eventually to the great achievement of his scholarly career, Austria From Habsburg to Hitler, published in 1948 in two volumes running to 1900 pages. The sub-titles that Gulick gave the two volumes, “Labor’s Workshop of Democracy” and “Fascism’s Subversion of Democracy,” are expressive of the book’s major themes and of his twin interests in the contributions labor movements can make to democratic society and in the anti-democratic forces that citizens of democracies must continuously fight against. The German translation of this work was published in Vienna in 1950 and immediately won a large readership and wide acclaim. In the same year, the city of Vienna awarded Gulick a prize for “distinguished achievement in moral sciences,” an honor not ordinarily accorded to non-Austrians. In the years since, the book has continued to be esteemed as one of the authoritative accounts of the first Austrian republic and in 1972 the President of Austria presented a gold medal to Gulick for “Services to the Republic.” A somewhat abbreviated German-language edition of the book was published in Austria in 1976 and a new printing of the original English edition was issued in 1980. In keeping with his long preoccupation with the fortunes of the labor movement and democracy in Austria, most of the articles he contributed to academic journals dealt with labor questions or political issues in that country.

While Gulick served conscientiously on a variety of Academic Senate and administrative committees, his primary campus interest was in teaching and working with students, and many generations of undergraduate and graduate students knew Gulick as a dedicated teacher and adviser and as a friend and supporter. He was generous of his time in meeting with individuals and with groups of students. He also felt a responsibility to help improve student writing. It was perhaps prophetic that his first academic appointment as a graduate student in Texas was as Tutor in English. He became widely known among his students for his practice of sprinkling the pages of their papers with notations or corrections concerning spelling, grammar, syntax, punctuation, and inaccurate quotations. He even enlisted his wife’s assistance in this work. He regularly held seminars in his home and he and his wife entertained students on many other occasions. It was appealing to students to find that Gulick shared many of their ideals for a good society and that he could voice in colorful language many of their criticisms of current social ills. An illustration of his outspokenness is his title for an article he wrote for a Vienna magazine after Ronald Reagan’s first election as governor of California, “The Political Landslide in California: Mass Lunacy, Fear and Hate.”

Charles Gulick died on August 27, 1984, leaving his wife, Esther, a daughter, two grandsons, and two great granddaughters.

Van Dusen Kennedy / Clark Kerr / Lloyd Ulman

 

Source: University of California History Digital Archives. University of California: In Memoriam, 1985, pp. 164-65.

Image Source: The Blue and Gold, 1922. University of California Yearbook.