Category: Economists

Categories
Columbia Economists Harvard

Harvard. Invitations for guest lectures by Schumpeter and Rathgen, 1913

This exchange of letters between Frank Taussig and President Lowell of Harvard involves two pieces of business. The first is Taussig’s request for approval to use department lecture funds to invite Joseph Schumpeter and Karl Rathgen, who were both visiting Columbia University, to give lectures at Harvard. The second piece of business concerns a recommendation of two men to be considered for the presidency of the University of Washington, one of whom (L. C. Marshall who was the Dean of the University of Chicago Business School) the other, James Rowland Angell who would go on to become President of Yale and who also happened to be the father of the Columbia University economist James Waterhouse Angell.

__________________________________

 

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
October 22, 1913.

F. W. Taussig
T. N. Carver
W. Z. Ripley
C. J. Bullock
E.F. Gay
W. M. Cole
O. M. W. Sprague
Q. E. Rappard
E. E. Day
B. M. Anderson, Jr.
H. L. Gray
Dear Lawrence:

Two Germans are in this country, both at the present moment lecturing at Columbia, to whom we might appropriately show a little attention. One is J. Schumpeter, an Austrian with whom I have had correspondence, and a very well-known and highly respected scholar; the other is K. Rathgen of Hamburg, also well-known in the profession. Our friends at Columbia write that these men would be glad to look at this institution, and we are more than willing to show them a little civility. Would you authorize us to ask each of them to give a lecture, possibly more than one, the fee to be charged to the fund for lectures on Political Economy? Schumpeter speaks excellent English, and could certainly give an acceptable lecture. Rathgen might possibly have to speak in German, in which case we should ask him simply to talk to our Seminary.

You remember our talk about the presidency of the University of Washington. I enclose a letter from L. C. Marshall of Chicago about young Angell, the psychologist, who deserves to be considered among the possibilities. I enclose also a memorandum of my own about Marshall himself, who seems to me at least the equal of Angell. Make such use of these papers as you can, either for this opening or for others that may appear in the future. When inquiring of Marshall about Angell, I gave no intimation of the reason for asking him.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
F. W. Taussig

President A. Lawrence Lowell.

 

__________________________________

October 23, 1913.

Dear Professor Taussig:—

We should certainly be very glad to have either Schumpeter or Rathgen, or both, speak to the students in economics, at the expense of the fund for lectures in political economy. I do not know whether you want an appointment by the Corporation for this purpose, or merely an invitation by the department.

Thank you for the suggestions of presidents of Washington University. I am transmitting them.

Very truly yours,
[stamped]
A. Lawrence Lowell

Professor F. W. Taussig
2 Scott Street,
Cambridge, Mass.

__________________________________

 

Source: Harvard University Archives. President Lowell’s Papers, 1909-1914 (UAI.5.160), Box 15, Folder 413 “1909-14”.

Image Source: Karl Rathgen: Fotosammlung des Geographischen Institutes der Humboldt-Universität Berlin.    Schumpeter: Ulrich Hedtke, Joseph Alois Schumpeter. Archive.

 

 

Categories
Economists Oxford

Oxford. Travers Twiss, Lectures. 1847

While checking the titles of references in Henry Carter Adams’ Outline of Lectures upon Political Economy Prepared for the Use of Students at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD., and the University of Michigan (Baltimore, 1881), I came across “Travers Twiss, Lectures I, II, III, IV” in Adams’ Part I Historical/§1 Introduction: Thought before the 16th century/A. Rise of the System.

The exact reference should read:

Twiss, Travers. View of the Progress of Political Economy in Europe since the Sixteenth Century. London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1847.

This I have just added to the collection at my “Rare Book Reading Room” page.

Having never heard of this particular Drummond professor of political economy at Oxford nor his lectures for that matter, I looked him up. Below you have the safe-for-work version of his biography from the 11th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I’ve linked to the blog entry in the “Victorian Calendar” that provides a few of the juicy details of the scandal that led to his early retirement.

______________________

TWISS, SIR TRAVERS (1809-1897), English jurist, eldest son of the Rev. Robert Twiss, was born in London on the 19th of March 1809. At University College, Oxford, he obtained a first-class in mathematics and a second in classics in 1830, and was elected a fellow of his college, of which he was afterwards successively bursar, dean and tutor. During his connexion with Oxford he was, inter alia, a public examiner in classics and mathematics, Drummond professor of political economy (1842), and regius professor of civil law (1855). After he had forfeited his fellowship by marriage, he was elected to an honorary fellowship of University College. He published while at Oxford an epitome of Niebuhr’s History of Rome, an annotated edition of Livy and other works, but his studies mainly lay in the direction of political economy, law, chiefly international law, and international politics. In 1840 he was called to the bar at Lincoln’s Inn, and became an advocate at Doctors’ Commons. In the ecclesiastical courts he enjoyed a large practice, and filled many of the appointments incidental thereto, such as commissary-general of the city and diocese of Canterbury (1849), vicar-general to the archbishop (1852) and chancellor of the diocese of London (1858). He was professor of international law at King’s College, London (1852-1855). In 1858, when the Probate and Divorce Acts of 1857 came into force, and the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Doctors’ Commons had passed away, Twiss, like many other leading advocates of Doctors’ Commons, became a Q.C., and in the same year he was also elected a bencher of his Inn. His successful career continued in the civil courts, and in addition to his large practice he was appointed in 1862 advocate-general to the admiralty, and in 1867 queen’s advocate-general. In 1867 he was also knighted. He served during his legal career upon a great number of royal commissions, such as the Maynooth commission in 1854, and others dealing with marriage law, neutrality, naturalization and allegiance. His reputation abroad led to his being invited by the king of the Belgians in 1884 to draw up the constitution of the Congo Free State. In 1871 Twiss became involved in an unpleasant scandal, occasioned by allegations against the ante-nuptial conduct of his wife, whom he had married in 1862; and he threw up all his appointments and lived in retirement in London until his death on the 14th of January 1897, devoting himself to the study of international law and kindred topics. Among his more notable publications of this period were The Law of Nations in Peace and The Law of Nations in War, two works by which his reputation as a jurist will chiefly endure.

Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica (11th ed). Vol. 27, p.493.

Image Source: The Victorian Calendar (March 13, 1872).

Categories
Chicago Economists

Chicago. Milton Friedman from Cambridge to T.W. Schultz. 29 Mar 1954

About a week ago I posted Milton Friedman’s letter from Cambridge, England to T. W. Schultz dated 28 October 1953. Today we have the next carbon copy of a letter to Schultz from Cambridge in the Milton Friedman papers at the Hoover Institution in which Friedman discusses a range of issues from a one-year appointment in mathematical economics at Chicago, the Cowles’ Directorship appointment, and postdoctoral fellowships. The letter ends with a laundry-list of miscellaneous comments from Arthur Burns’ Economic Report to the President through the reception of McCarthy news in England. Friedman’s candid assessments of many of his fellow-economists make this letter particularly interesting.  More to come!

______________________

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….

_____________________

Milton Friedman to T.W. Schultz
29 March 1954

15 Latham Road
Cambridge, England
March 29, 1954

 

Dear Ted:

Of the people you list as possible visiting professors while Koopmans is away, Solow of M.I.T. is the one who offhand appeals to me the most. I have almost no doubt about his absolute competence: I read his doctoral dissertation at an early stage and saw something of him last summer and the preceding summer when he was spending some time at Hanover in connection with one or another of Bill Madow’s projects. He has a seminal mind and analytical ability of a very high order. My only questions would be the other that you raise, whether he is broadly enough interested in economics. And here I am inclined to answer with an uncertain yes, relying partly on the fact that he is flexible and capable of being induced. I do not know Dorfman of California either personally or through his writings. My question about him is that I believe that we would do best if we could use this opportunity in general to bring in someone with a rather different point of view and who will provide a broadening of the kind of thing done under the heading of mathematical economics, and my impression is that Dorfman is very much in the same line as Koopmans – but here too, I don’t have much confidence in my knowledge. As you know, I think very highly of both Modigliani and Christ, but as of the moment for this particular spot, would prefer Solow, partly on grounds of greater differentiation of product.

One rather harebrained possibility that has occurred to me outside your list is Maurice Allais, the French mathematical economist who is Professor at École des Mines. Allais is a crackpot genius in many respects. He came out of engineering and is largely self taught, which means he holds the erroneous views he has discovered for himself as strongly as the correct ones. I have always said that if he had, at a formative age, had one year of really good graduate education in economics he might have become one of the really great names. At the same time, Allais is an exceedingly active and stimulating person who works in mathematical economics of a rather different kind than we have been accustomed to. I think it would be a good thing to have him around for a year – both for us and him – though I am most uncertain that it would be for a longer period. I don’t have any basis for knowing whether Allais would be interested.

I have tried to think over the other European mathematical economists to see if they offer other possibilities. There are others in France: Guilbaud [Georges-Théodule Guilbaud (1912-2008)], Boiteux [Marcel Boiteux (1922-)] (I don’t have that spelled right), but none seem to me as good as Allais for our purposes. There are Frisch and Haavelmo in Norway, Wold in Sweden; of these, Haavelmo would be the best. I find it hard to think of anybody in England who meets this particular bill, and would be at all conceivable. Dick Stone? Has just been over and is not primarily mathematical but might be very good indeed in some ways. Is certainly econometric minded and fairly broadly so. R.G.D. Allen? Has done almost nothing in math. econ. for a long time.*

*[handwritten footnote, incomplete on left side presumably because carbon paper folded on the corner:   “…real possibility here is a young fellow at the London School, A. W. Phillips…invented the “machine” Lerner has been peddling. He came to econ. out of ….good indeed. He has an important paper in the mathematics of stabilization (over) policies, scheduled to appear(?) in Econ. Journal shortly.”]

Getting back home, the names that occur to me have, I am sure, also occurred to you. Is Kenneth Arrow unavailable for a year’s arrangement? What about Vickrey? I don’t believe that in any absolute sense I would rate Vickrey above Christ, say, but for us he has the advantage of bringing a different background and approach.

The above is all written in the context of a definite one-year arrangement in the field of mathematical economics. I realize, of course, that this may turn out to be an undesirable limitation. This is certainly an opportunity to try someone whom we might be interested in permanently; and it may be possible to make temporary arrangements for math. econ. for the coming year – via DuBrul, Marschak, etc. The difficulty is that once I leave this limited field, the remainder is so broad that I hardly know where to turn. For myself, I believe we might well use this to bring someone in in money, if that possibility existed. If it did, I should want strongly to press on you Harry Johnson, here at Cambridge, but originally a Canadian educated at the University of Toronto, who is the one new person I have come to know here who has really impressed me.

One other person from the US left out of the above list but perhaps eligible even within the narrower limitations is William Baumol. Oughtn’t he be considered?

Within the narrower limitations, my own listing would, at the moment, be: Allais, Solow, Baumol, Arrow, Vickrey, Phillips. I would hasten to add that my listing of Arrow fourth is entirely consistent with my believing him the best of the lot in absolute competence, and the one who would still go to the top of this list for a permanent post.

I turn to the other possibility you raise in your letter, a permanent post a la the Tobin one. I am somewhat puzzled how to interpret the change of view, you suggest, I assume that the person would be expected to take over the directorship of Cowles. If this is so, it seems to me highly unfortunate to link it with a permanent post in the department. Obviously, the best of all worlds would be if there were someone we definitely wanted as a permanent member of the department who also happened to be interested in the Cowles area and was willing to direct, or better interested in directing, Cowles. In lieu of this happy accident, I would myself like to see the two issues kept as distinct as possible; to have the Cowles people name a director, with the aid and advice but not necessarily the consent, of the department; have the department offer him cooperation, opportunity to teach, etc., but without having him a full-fledged permanent member. I hope you will pardon these obiter dicta. I realize that this is a topic you have doubtless discussed ad nauseam; what is even more important, if after such discussion, you feel differently, I would predict that you would succeed in persuading me to your view; which is why I leave it with these dicta and without indicating the arguments – you can provide them better than I.

The issue strikes me particularly forcefully because I do feel that in terms of the needs of the department, our main need is not for someone else mainly in the Cowles area; it is for someone to replace either Mints in money, or me in orthodox theory, if I slide over to take Mints’ role.

For Cowles’ sake as well as our own, there might be much to be said for having the directorship be the primary post for whoever comes. It seems to me bad for Cowles to have that post viewed as either a sideshow or a stepping stone. For directorship of Cowles, some names that occur are: Herbert Simon; Dorothy Brady; with more doubt Modigliani. One possibility much farther off the beaten track is Warren Nutter, who has, I gathered, been a phenomenal administrative success in Wash. at Central Intelligence Agency; yet is an economist. Would Charlie Hitch, who has been running Rand’s economic division be completely out?

[Handwritten note: “You know, Gregg Lewis might be better than any of these if he would do it!]

If the post is to be viewed as primarily a professorship in the department, with Cowles directorship as a sideline, I have great difficulty in making any suggestions: I would not, in particular, be enthusiastic about any of those mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Arrow, yes, but he is apparently out. Simon Kuznets, yes, but he would be likely to make Cowles into something altogether different that it is. I feel literally stuck in trying to think of acceptable candidates. Perhaps I can be more useful in reacting to other suggestions.

Let me combine with this some comments on your March 15 letter, which I should have answered long since.

On the post-doctoral fellowship, I feel less bearish than you, primarily, I suppose because I am inclined to lay a good deal of emphasis on the intangible benefits from having a widespread group of people who have had a year at Chicago. It seems to me that a post-doctoral fellowship is more likely to do this than a staff appointment, both because it is likely to bring in a wider range of people to apply and because it is rather more likely to have a one or two year limit and so a more rapid turnover. What has disappointed me most is the limited number of people among whom we have been forced to choose. Why is it that we don’t get more applications? Is it because we do treat it now like a staff appointment? Do we advertise it as widely as we might and stimulate a considerable number of applicants? Or is it simply because the great increase in number of post-doctoral fellowships available (and decrease in quality of people going in for economics?) has lowered the demand for any one fellowship? I find it hard to believe that making it into a staff appointment would help much in providing more adequate review and appraisal – this is I believe a result of the limitations of time on all of us – but it might give it greater prestige and make it more valuable to the recipient in this way, though, it would cost him tax and limit freedom.

I believe that part of the problem you raise about the postdoctoral fellowship has little to do with it per se but is a general problem about the department. Is our own work subject to as much discussion and advice from our colleagues as each of us would like? The answer seems to me clearly no. The trouble is – and I am afraid it is to some extent unavoidable and common at other places – that we have so many other duties and tasks to perform that being an intellectual community engaged in cross-stimulation perforce takes a back seat. This disease is I think one that grows as the square of the professional age. From this point of view, I think that the more junior people around the better in many ways and I think this one of the real virtues of the development of research projects that will enable us to keep more beginners around.

On the whole, I continue to think that the fellowship idea is sound, in the sense that we ought to have a number of people around who have no assigned duties. I would defend the Mishan result in these terms. I think he was a most useful intellectual stimulant and irritant to have around even if his own output was not too striking. The virtue of the fellowship arrangement is that it enables you to shape the hole to the peg. I cannot of course judge about Prais. But I am surprised by your adverse comments on Dewey’s use of it; I would have thought his one of the clearly most successful post-doctoral fellowships so far.

As you have doubtless heard, Muth has decided to go to Cowles. I am sorry that he has. I think he is good. I am somewhat troubled about the general problem of recruiting for the Workshop at a distance. In addition to Muth, I had heard from Pesek, whom I encouraged but left the matter open because he would rather have a fellowship that he applied for that would pay his travelling expenses to Washington. My general feeling is that it would be a mistake to take anyone just because I am not on the spot, that it would be far better to start fairly slowly, and let the thing build up, adding people as they turn up next year. Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

I am delighted to hear about Fred’s ford project. I had a wire from Willits recently re Harberger and I assume it was in connection with his proposed project. Al Rees will be a splendid editor, I feel, and it is excellent to have him entirely in the department. I hardly know what to think of Morton Grodzins as Dean. I assume that his appointment measn that he was regarded as a successful administrator at the Press. Grodzins has great drive and energy, is clearly bright and intelligent, but whether he has the judgment either of men or of directions of development that is required, and the ability to raise money that Tyler displayed, is something I have less confidence in. Who is taking over the Press?

I enjoyed your comments on both Arthur Burns and McCarthy. With respect to the first, I thought the economic report extraordinarily good, both in its analysis of the immediate situation and in its discussion of the general considerations that should guide policy. It showed courage, too, I think in its willingness to say nasty things about farm supports and minimum wages to mention two. My views about the recession are indicated by the title of a lecture I am scheduled to give in Stockholm towards the end of April: “Why the American Economy is Depression-proof”. After all, there is no reason why Colin Clark should be the only economist sticking his neck out. It continues to seem to me that the danger to be worried about is over-reacting to this recession and in the process producing a subsequent inflationary spurt. Arthur seems to me to be showing real courage in holding out against action. To do something would surely be the easy and in the short run politically popular course.

McCarthyism has of course been attracting enormous attention here. Indeed, for long it has crowded almost all other American news into the background with the result that it has given a thoroughly distorted view of America to newspaper readers. I enclose a clipping in this connection which you may find amusing. it is not a bad summary, though I trust I put in more qualifications.

We have gotten an opportunity to go to Spain via an invitation to lecture at Madrid (Earl’s doing, I suspect), so Rose and I are leaving next week for a week there. Shortly after our return we go to Sweden and Denmark for a couple of weeks. We are very much excited by the prospects. Best regards to all.

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 Harvard

Harvard. Marx/Engels/Lenin Readings. Emile Burns (ed.), 1935

 

 

In 1935 the British Communist, Emile Burns, published A Handbook of Marxism that included just over one thousand pages of excerpts from key works by Marx, Engels, Lenin and (yes) Stalin. Reading assignments in the Burns volume can be found in four of the course syllabi from the Harvard economics department thus far included among the transcribed artifacts in Economics in the Rear-View Mirror. In the table below I note which chapters were assigned for the four courses.

That table is followed by the Table of Contents of the Burns Handbook along with links to available versions (not always the same translation however) of some of the works from which excerpts have been included. There is still work to do in putting links to most of the Lenin pieces and all those of Stalin, but at least all the Marx-Engels chapters have links to the complete works for now.

Chapter XXI consists of excerpts from chapters from the three volumes of Capital. I find it handy to have this short-list of chapters chosen by a practicing Communist of the 1930s. The Handbook is about 50:50  Marx & Engels (ca 500 pages) vs. Lenin & Stalin.

 Cf. the 1918 “Outline for the Study of Marxism” by Karl Dannenberg.

_______________________________________

A HANDBOOK OF MARXISM

being
a collection of extracts from the writings of
Marx, Engels and the greatest of their followers

selected
so as to give the reader
the most comprehensive account of Marxism
possible within the limits of a single volume:

the passages
being chosen by Emile Burns, who has added
in each case a bibliographical note, & an
explanation of the circumstances in which the
work was written & its special significance in
the development of Marxism : as well as the
necessary glossaries and index.

LONDON
VICTOR GOLLANCZ LTC
1934

_______________________________________

Harvard Economics Courses with Assigned Readings
in A Handbook of Marxism

Chapter

 Mason and Sweezy 1938 Sweezy 1940 Taylor 1948 Taylor 1950

I.

 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

II.

III.

IV.

 ✓

V.

 ✓

VI.
VII. ✓
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.

XIII.

 ✓ ✓ ✓

XIV.

 ✓
XV.

XVI.
XVII.

XVIII.
XIX.

XX.

 ✓ ✓ ✓
XXI. ✓

XXII.

 ✓
XXIII.

XXIV.
XXV.

XXVI.
XXVII.

XXVIII.
XXIX.

✓
XXX. ✓

 

Table of Contents
Emile Burns, A Handbook of Marxism (1935)

Introduction
Chap.
I. K. Marx and F. Engels. The Communist Manifesto
II. K. Marx. Address to the Communist League (1850)
III. F. Engels. Introduction to the Class Struggles in France (1848-50)
IV. K. Marx. The Class Struggles in France (1848-50)
V. K. Marx. The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
VI. F. Engels. Germany: Revolution and Counter-Revolution
VII. K. Marx. The Civil War in France
VIII. F. Engels. Introduction to the Civil War in France
IX. K. Marx. The Crimean War [New York Tribune, 24 October 1854]
X. K. Marx. The British Rule in India [New York Tribune, June 25, 1853, p. 6];  The Future Results of British Rule in India [New York Tribune, August 8, 1853, p. 5.]
XI. K. Marx. Relations Between the Irish and English Working Classes
[5. The Question of the General Council’s Resolution on the Irish Amnesty]
XII.

F. Engels. The British Labour Movement

[A Fair Day’s Wages for a Fair Day’s Work; The French Commercial Treaty ; Social Classes—Necessary and Superfluous]
XIII.

K. Marx and F. Engels. German Ideology
XIV.

F. Engels. Ludwig Feuerbach
XV.

K. Marx. Theses on Feuerbach
XVI.

F. Engels. Herr Eugen Dühring’s Revolution in Science (Anti-Dühring)
XVII.

F. Engels. The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.
XVIII.

F. Engels. The Housing Question [Parts I and II]
XIX.

K. Marx. The Poverty of Philosophy

[Chapter 2: The Metaphysics of Political Economy. Section 1: The Method]
XX.

K. Marx. A Contribution to “the Critique of Political Economy”
XXI.

K. Marx. Capital

(164 pages of excerpts from the following chapters of the Charles H. Kerr & Co., Chicago edition of the three volumes of English translation. Note the recommended order for volume I)

Vol. I, Ch. XXVI. The Secret of Primitive Accumulation;
Vol. I, Ch. XXVII. Expropriation of the Agricultural Population from the Land;
Vol. I, Ch. XXIX. Genesis of the Capitalist Farmer;
Vol. I, Ch. XXX. Reaction of the Agricultural Revolution on Industry: Creation of the Home Market for Industrial Capital;
Vol. I, Ch. XXXI. Genesis of the Industrial Capitalist;
Vol. I, Ch. XXXII. Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation;
Vol. I, Ch. I. Commodities;
Vol. I, Ch. III. Money, or the Circulation of Commodities;
Vol. I, Ch. IV. The General Formula for Capital;
Vol. I, Ch. V. Contradictions in the General Formula of Capital;
Vol. I, Ch. VI. The Buying and Selling of Labour-Power;
Vol. I, Ch. VII. The Labour Process and the Process of Producing Surplus Value;
Vol. I, Ch. VIII. Constant Capital and Variable Capital;
Vol. II, Ch. XX. Simple Reproduction;
Vol. II, Ch. XXI. Accumulation and reproduction on an Enlarged Scale;
Vol. III, Ch. X. Market Prices and Market Values;
Vol. III, Ch. XIII. The Law of the Falling Tendency of the Rate of Profit: The Theory of the Law;
Vol. III Ch. XIV. Counteracting Causes;
Vol. III, Ch. XV. Unravelling the Internal Contradictions of the Law;
Vol. III, Ch. LI. Conditions of Distribution and Production;
XXII. V. I. Lenin. The Teachings of Karl Marx
XXIII. V. I. Lenin. Our Programme
XXIV. V. I. Lenin. What is to be done?
XXV. V. I. Lenin. The Revolution of 1905
XXVI. V. I. Lenin. Materialism and Empirio-Criticism
XXVII. V. I. Lenin. The Historical Fate of the Teaching of Karl Marx
XXVIII. V. I. Lenin. Socialism and War
XXIX.

V. I. Lenin. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism

[Ch. VII. Imperialism as a Special Stage of Capitalism;
Ch. VIII. Parasitism and the Decay of Capitalism;
Ch. IX. Critique of Imperialism]

 
XXX.

V. I. Lenin. The State and Revolution

[Ch. I. Class Society and the State;
Ch. V. The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State]
XXXI. V. I. Lenin. Letters from Afar
XXXII. V. I. Lenin. The Tasks of the Proletariat in our Revolution
XXXIII. J. Stalin. Report on the Political Situation, August 1917
XXXIV. V. I. Lenin. On the Eve of October
XXXV. J. Stalin. The October Revolution
XXXVI. V. I. Lenin. The Proletarian Revolution and Kautsky the Renegade
XXXVII. J. Stalin. Foundations of Leninism
XXXVIII. V. I. Lenin. “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder
XXXIX. J. Stalin. The International Situation, August 1927
XL. J. Stalin. Report at Seventeenth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 1934
XLI. J. Stalin. Address to the Graduates from the Red Army Academy
XLII. The Programme of the Communist International
Appendices
Index

 

Image Source: Graham Stephenson website, Communist Biogs: Emile Burns.

 

 

 

 

Categories
Economists ERVM

Roosevelt College. Abba Lerner with a Phillips Moniac, 1951

I’ve got to crow. Recently entertained a group of students visiting Berlin from Roosevelt University in Chicago and was given a nice picture book about the history of their university in which there was a picture of Abba Lerner with the analogue Phillips Moniac computer. When I googled to find out whether that Moniac was still somewhere at Roosevelt, I stumbled upon an eBay ad for the photograph distributed with the article (link below) published December 7, 1951 in the Sarasota Herald Tribune. For $25 plus postage I scored an original glossy print of the picture seen in this screenshot from Google news, Abba P. Lerner with his Robot Professor.

1951_11_ScreenshotMoniac

 

______________________

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
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)”.