Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Policy Problem Sets Public Finance Suggested Reading Syllabus

Harvard. Economic Principles and Public Policy. Syllabus, readings, questions. Schelling, 1981

In my opinion Thomas C. Schelling (1921-2016) has achieved something greater than the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (2005). The history of economics will remember him as the very model of a modern thinking economist’s economist.

The earlier post for the reading list and final exams from his 1970 Harvard course “Conflict, Coalition and Strategy” has been viewed nearly 19,000 times, making it the highest single post in the eleven year history of Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

The purpose of today’s post is to provide a digital, transcribed version of Schelling’s 1981 course materials for “Economic Principles and Public Policy” assembled from a PDF file of the scanned copy of this material compiled and published by Ed Tower in his Eno River Press Collection in Economics. In this form, it will be even easier to access, search, copy, and paste from. 

_________________________

Where to Find the Motherload

The Eno River Press Collection in Economics, compiled by Duke professor (now emeritus) Ed Tower, is the motherload of syllabi, problems sets, and exams from economics courses taught over roughly two decades at the end of the 20th century. Thanks to the initiative of Steven Medema, this material has been digitized and made available as .pdf files:  1980 (15 vols.); 1981 (25 vols.); 1990 (25 vols.); 1995 (25 vols.). There is an analogous set of volumes, likewise available in business administration.

Professor Ed Tower came to Duke in 1974. He received his Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard in 1971. He has held appointments at the Australian National University, the University of Auckland in New Zealand, the Economics Institute, the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, the Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration, Nanjing University in the Peoples’ Republic of China, and Simon Fraser University in Canada. He has also consulted on economic development problems at the World Bank and the U.S. Agency for International Development, and in Indonesia, Kenya, Malawi, and Sudan, and has written on development problems in Malaysia, the Peoples’ Republic of China, and Taiwan.
Source: Duke Economics Department, WWW Resource.

_________________________

Undergraduate Course

HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Economic Principles and Public Policy
Economics 1021
Spring 1981

T. C. Schelling

Course Outline and Reading Assignments

All readings listed are assigned; none are optional.

Books Required to Purchase:

Robert H. Haveman and Julius Margolis, Public Expenditure and Policy Analysis, second ed. (paperback), Rand McNally, 1977.

Robert Dorfman and Nancy Dorfman, Economics of the Environment, second ed., W.W. Norton and Company, 1977.

Richard Goode, The Individual Income Tax, revised ed. (paperback), The Brookings Institution, 1976.

Charles L. Schultze, The Public Use of Private Interest,
The Brookings Institution, 1977.

Arthur M. Okun, Equality and Efficiency, The Brookings
Institution, 1975.

T.C. Schelling, Micromotives and Macrobehavior, W.W. Norton and Company, 1978.

Harold M. Hochman, The Urban Economy, W.W. Norton and Company, 1976.

Book Required to Obtain:

Your Income Tax, Publication 17, Internal Revenue Service,
not for sale.

Note: The class meets in lecture 13 times before Spring Recess. Reading assignments for the 8 meetings after Spring Recess will be distributed later.  Sections will meet each week except the first week and the week before Spring Recess.

_________________________

Outline and Readings
Pages Meetings
I. Lives and Decisions 136
(Cumul-ative totals in parentheses)
3
  1. Chase, Samuel B., (ed.), Problems in Public Expenditure Analysis, The Brookings Institution, 1968, pp. 127-176.
  2. Vaupel, James W. and John D. Graham, “Egg in Your Bier?”, The Public Interest, No. 58, Winter 1980, pp. 3-17.
  3. Zeckhauser, Richard, “Procedures for Valuing Lives,” Public Policy, Fall 1975, pp. 419-464.
  4. Lave, Lester B. and Eugene P. Seskin, “Air Pollution and Human Health,” in Robert Dorfman and Nancy S. Dorfman, Economics of the Environment, 2nd ed., W.W. Norton & Co., pp. 422-449.
II. Policy: Why Things May Not Take Care of Themselves 177 (313) 2 (5)
  1. Haveman, Robert H. and Julius Margolis, Public Expenditure and Policy Analysis, 2nd ed., 1977, Introduction, pp. 1-24.
  2. Davis, Otto A. and Morton I. Kamien, “Externalities, Information and Alternative Collective Action,” H and M, pp. 82-104.
  3. Schelling, T.C., Micromotives and Macrobehavior, W.W. Norton & Co., 1978.

Ch. 1, “Micromotives and Macrobehavior,” 9-43.
Ch. 3, “Thermostats, Lemons, and Other Families of Models,” 83-133.
Ch. 4, “Sorting and Mixing:  Race and Sex,” 137-155.
Ch. 6, “Choosing Our Children’s Genes,” 193-203.

  1. Steiner, Peter O., “The Public Sector and the Public Interest,” in H and M, pp. 27-40.
III. Examples of Market Failure 214 (527) 2 (7)
The Environment

  1. Ruff, Larry E., “The Economic Common Sense of Pollution,” in D and D, pp. 41-58.
  2. Dales, J.H., “The Property Interface,” in D and D, pp. 172-186.
  3. Dales, J.H., “Land, Water, and Ownership,”in D and D, pp. 229-244.
  4. Mishan, E.J., “Property Rights and AmenityRights,” in D and D, pp. 245-251.
  5. Schelling, T.C., “Prices as Regulatory Instruments for Environmental Protection,”JFK School of Government, December 1980.
  6. Goldman, Marshall I., “The Convergence ofEnvironmental Disruption,” in D and D, pp. 312-325.

The City

  1. Baumol, W.J. & Wallace E. Oates, “The CostDisease of the Personal Services and the Quality of Life,” pp. 57-73, in The Urban Economy by Harold M. Hochman, W.W. Norton and Co., 1976.
  2. Thompson, Wilbur, “The City as a DistortedPrice System,” pp. 74-86, in The Urban Economy.
  3. Alonso, William, “Urban Zero Population Growth,” pp. 164-179 in The Urban Economy.
IV. Helping People 118 (645) 3 (10)
The Conflict Between Equity and Incentives

  1. Tobin, James, “The Case for an Income Guarantee,” The Public Interest, Summer 1966, pp. 31-41.
  2. Schorr, Alvin L., “Against a Negative Income Tax,” and James Tobin, “A Rejoinder,” The Public Interest, Fall 1966, pp. 110-119.
  3. Weisbrod, Burton A., “Collective Action andthe Distribution of Income:  A Conceptual Approach,” in H & M, pp. 105-131.
  4. Products Liability:  Bexiga vs. Havir Mfg.Corp., Harvard Law Review, Vol. 86 (March1973), pp. 923-931.
  5. Implications of Guaranteeing Medical Care,Institute of Medicine, 1975, Schelling et al., pp. 23-37, 39-44, 53-57.

Cash, Kind, or Rationing

  1. Tobin, James, “On Limiting the Domain of Inequality,” The Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 13 (October 1970), pp. 263-277.
  2. Thurow, Lester C., “Cash Versus In-Kind Transfers,” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, May 1974, pp. 190-195.
  3. Frieden, Bernard J., “Housing Allowances:  An Experiment That Worked,” The Public Interest, No. 59, Spring 1980, pp. 15-35.
V. Case Study: Day Care 68 (713) 0 (10)
  1. Nelson, Richard R., The Moon and The Ghetto, W.W. Norton and Co., 1977, pp. 83-103.
  2. Rivlin, Alice, “Federal Support for Child Care:  An Analysis of Options,” in H & M, pp. 442-475.
  3. Bruce-Briggs, B., “‘Child Care,’ The FiscalTime Bomb,” The Public Interest, #49, Fall 1977, pp. 87-102.
VI. Review Questions 0 (713) 1 (11)
Spring 1981
Course Plan

WEEK OF

SECTION

2/2

No sections

2/9

Problem: Right Turn on Red

2/16
[Washington’s B-Day]

Quiz

2/23

Hour Exam:
Lives, Policy, Environment, City

3/2

Problem: Moral Hazard

3/9

Quiz

3/16

15 Questions Due

3/23

****** RECESS ******

3/30

Hour Exam:
Helping People, Cash v Kind, Day Care, Crime, Energy

4/6

Problem: Tax

4/13

Quiz: Tax

4/20

Quiz: Tax

4/26

****** READING PERIOD ******

Source:  Economics Reading Lists, Course Outlines, Exams, Puzzles & Problems compiled by Edward Tower. Vol. 20 (July 1981): Public Choice, Political Economy, and the Economics of Public Policy & Law, pp. 133-137.

_________________________

ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES
AND PUBLIC POLICY

M-228 & ECONOMICS 1021
Spring 1981

T. C. Schelling
Harvard University

The Income Tax

            These questions are prompted by a reading of the Form 1040. Some of the questions will be discussed in class, some are for your reflection and study. The purpose is to alert you to the kinds of questions and issues that almost any line in the tax form can raise. Several hours can be devoted to the economic philosophy underlying income taxes, discerning intention, recognizing administrative com-promise, analyzing incentives, and evaluating the income tax as an instrument to achieve a variety of goals. It need not be viewed as a coherent philosophy or a set of integrated and compatible purposes; searching for inconsistencies or obsolete details, and reflecting on historical processes and political compromises, are part of the exercise.

Page 1 of Form 1040

  1. Why “income rather than “wealth?”
    What difference does it make whether income or wealth is the subject of the tax?
  2. Why is the calendar year the unit of accounting?
    What provisions modify this annual slicing?
    What would be an ideal accounting period, or is there one?
    What incentives result from slicing time into annual units?
  3. Should a married couple be treated as a single unit, as two persons, or allowed some choice in how to file?
    Do you perceive any incentives on marriage and divorce?
  4. What reason can you think of for the extra exemption for the blind, not for the deaf or the crippled?
    Why might blindness be exactly equivalent to one dependent?
    Should blindness be treated as an exemption or a tax credit?
    What are the differences between this kind of help for the blind and cash grants not related to income?
  5. Should the allowance for a dependent be a constant amount of income, irrespective of bracket? Should it instead be graduated, so that the differential between a large and small family at high income is greater than the differential at a lower income? Should it be a tax credit rather than an exemption?
  6. Is there an implied philosophy about family, children, and birth, in this treatment of dependents? Does it imply that children are:

1) a consumer good,
2) an insurable accident,
3) a productive asset,
4) a social obligation?

Are there incentives on family size or timing due to this treatment of dependents?

  1. What is the argument for including capital gains as a kind of income? Alternatively, what is the argument for not treating them the same as income?
    Why distinguish long-term from short-term? Is this an anti-gambling or anti-speculation bias? Is it expected or intended to have incentives on the holding of securities?
    Why are only “realized” gains taxed, so that if your stock or property rises in value you pay no tax unless you sell it?
    What are the incentives: do people get “locked in” to property holdings that have risen in value, having to hold it rather than exchange it for other stock and property?
    Why is a special exemption made for the sale of one’s own house?
  2. Should gambling gains and losses be treated like any other income?
    Should they be ignored altogether and left untaxed?
    Does the treatment discriminate against “pure” gambling but not against gambling on the commodity or stock market?
    Is this treatment consistent with the increasing popularity of state lotteries, off-track and on-track betting, etc.?
    What effect will the treatment of gambling gains and losses have on the ability of legal gambling to compete with illegal gambling?
  3. Can you guess what kinds of “employee business expenses” a typical university professor will take credit for on his tax return? Do you expect any incentives, such as the likelihood of having better office equipment, more telephone extensions, better personal libraries, if they are tax-deductible?

Schedule A

  1. Itemized deductions: Is there a single rationale for the items deductible? Is it:
      1. to get at a better accounting of income
      2. to encourage expenses of the kinds that have been made deductible.
      3. to compensate for special hardships and obligations;
      4. or what?
  2. Why is medical care somewhat deductible?
    How does treatment of medical care discriminate between the poor and the well-to-do?
    Could you estimate the “cost” to the Internal Revenue Service (or to other taxpayers if they would have to make it up in higher tax rates) of this treatment of medical care?
    If you could redistribute an equivalent amount, to compensate people for an injury and illness and disability, would you rather distribute it in a manner unrelated to income or income taxes?
    Can you find a plausible explanation of the quantitative treatment of medical care: e.g., 1/2 of insurance premiums; excess over 3% of income; subtracting out 18 in line 3; etc.
  3. How would you prefer to treat funeral expenses? Should sanitary or tasteful disposal of a dead body be treated as a terminal medical expense? Can you think of good reasons for the actual treatment of this item?
  4. What contributions are tax-deductible, and why?
    Is this equivalent to a subsidy of churches by the federal government?
    Is the object to stimulate contributions?
    Is this a useful way to decentralize federal subsidies, by a system of “matching grants” to anybody who wants to support his favorite charity?
    Who has more leverage in determining where the IRS makes its contributions, a poor or a rich person?
  5. What do you think are the most questionable “contributions,” the ones about which it is hard to decide whether they are within the spirit of the income tax?
    Is it a “contribution” if I make a sizable gift to a private school in hopes that they will give priority admissions to my children?
    Can I unload a library that I’ve grown tired of, and treat it as a cash “gift” to the University?
    Suppose I make the gift and the recipient throws it away?
    Suppose I make a “gift” to a nursing home that is really a disguised bill for the care of an aged relative, but the nursing home winks and lets me “pay” the bill in a tax-deductible way?
  6. Why should the interest you pay be deductible? (Interest you receive is taxable.) Does this put a distortion in the incentive structure–regarding, say, mortgaged homes vs. outright ownership–or does it eliminate a distortion?
  7. Is the treatment of “casualty losses” equivalent to insurance handled by the Treasury?
    Does it discriminate in favor of the rich, the poor, the property-less, or the property owners?
    Could the treatment of casualty losses have any influence on the insurance that people purchase?
    If I smash my car and somebody else’s, and he sues me for damage and I pay, should both parts of the loss be deductible, or only the damage to my own car?
  8. Why allow deductions for taxes paid to state and local government but not other federal taxes?

General Questions

  1. It has been argued that employees of the federal government ought not to pay income tax: they are simply returning part of their salary. If they were exempted from tax we could lower their pay to the “after taxes” level, saving them the trouble of making out returns and the IRS the trouble of processing them. Do you see objections to that procedure?
    Do your objections apply equally to state taxation of incomes earned in state employment?
  2. Children who are eighteen or younger count as dependents, no matter how much income they had. Should we reexamine this age, as voting ages, draft ages, and ages over which juvenile courts have jurisdiction change as the years go by, and with the increasing independence of teenage “dependents?”
    A child with income abruptly ceases to be a dependent at age nineteen. Would there be advantage in having dependency taper off gradually?
  3. In earlier years, military combat pay was excluded from taxable income.
    Why would the federal government prefer to do it that way rather than with an outright pay increase?
    It has recently been proposed to exempt all military pay from federal taxation. What are the reasons for and against?
  4. If you and your employer both pay a percentage of your salary into a retirement fund, should your part not be treated as income and subject to taxation? Should his?
    If the retirement fund invests it, should the accrual of interest and dividends to your retirement account be currently taxable?
    How much flexibility should the IRS allow you in putting part of your income into a retirement fund, temporarily beyond reach of the income tax?
    Suppose your retirement fund permits you to withdraw from it in an emergency? Does that make it just an investment fund to escape the income tax?
    Suppose you cannot withdraw it but you can borrow against it.
    Is it only a pretense that it is still there and you have not drawn it down to spend it?
    What general purpose do you see in permitting contributions to a retirement account to evade immediate taxation, but not any other form of saving that is invested for the sake of deferred consumption? Is this just another subsidy for incentives, or is there some logical reason to exempt this contribution, as being not “earned” until one is legally able to draw on it after retirement?
  5. Consider some income that is not subject to tax–either legally immune, or just practically uncollectible (evasion being easy and people willing to evade in the belief that others do).
    Specifically, tips to waiters and waitresses. who do you think benefits from untaxed tips?
    What do you think the effect is on waiters’ wages and the prices of restaurant meals? Does your answer depend on the income earned by waiters?
    Think of some untaxed fee or salary supplement in a high income bracket, and answer the same question–e.g., untaxed fees of abortionists when abortion was illegal.
    Can you make any general proposition about who benefits to what extent when any identifiable kind of income goes untaxed, either because it is legally exempt or because the tax is regularly evaded?

Beneficiaries and Incentives

  1. Select some disadvantaged or underpriviledged group that you would like to help with extra income at government expense.
    1. What is the best device you can think of that might be incorporated in the income tax to serve that purpose?
    2. Compare that income-tax measure with the best alternative measure (not involving the income tax) that would serve the same purpose.
    3. How much of the tax benefit (i.e. the tax loss to the government) is likely to go to the people whom you did not especially wish to receive the benefit? How serious an inefficiency is that?
    4. How many of the people you would like to help are not reached by your proposed tax measure, and how serious is that inefficiency?
  2. Select an activity that you would like to stimulate at government expense.
    1. What is the best device you can think of that might be incorporated in the income tax to serve that purpose?
    2. Compare that income-tax measure with the best alternative measure (not involving the income tax) that would serve the same purpose.
    3. How much of the tax benefit is likely to go to taxpayers whose activity is unaffected by your income-tax measure?
    4. How would you estimate the amount of the desired activity (measured perhaps in the increase in taxpayer expenditure on it) induced per dollar of lost tax revenue?
  3. Discuss the incentives in the income tax that affect the following. Indicate the direction in which they affect it, the likely magnitude of the effect, and the desirability of the incentive effect:
    1. owning a home, or renting;
    2. doing work around the house rather than hiring it done;
    3. diverting wages and salaries into institutionalized retirement arrangements;
    4. choosing among savings accounts, bonds, stocks, and real estate;
    5. purchasing collision-damage auto insurance;
    6. having another child;
    7. housewives taking full-time jobs and getting sitters, housekeepers, cleaning help, etc., to take care at home;
    8. choosing one’s occupation.
  4. What in the income tax do you think affects the way Harvard University is administered? (For example, the health service, retirement arrangements, providing expenses rather than income to faculty, granting scholarships).
  5. Income Tax Work Incentives
    It has been argued that an income tax induces people to work less because it reduces their net hourly compensation. A person who can do extra work at $7.50 per hour may not do it if he keeps only $5.
    It has also been argued that an income tax induces people to work more because it lowers their net income for any amount of work they do; to maintain desired standards of living the income tax leaves them no choice but to work more.
    How would you resolve the dispute, either choosing one of these two points of view, denying them both, or finding some reconciliation between these two opposing arguments?
  6. Taxes and the Ability to Pay
    It has been argued that the income tax is unique among taxes in discriminating according to “ability to pay.” why, then, should there be additional taxes unrelated to the ability to pay? There are other taxes and they add up to as much as the income tax. Of course, in politics nobody’s perfect, and we needn’t be surprised that “ability to pay” is honored and violated at the same time. Still, there may be good reasons why an income tax is not or cannot be relied on as the sole source of revenue.
      1. How successfully does it tax people on their “ability to pay?”
      2. Give some good reasons for not expecting the income tax to be able to serve as the unique, universal, all-purpose tax.
    1. Child Dependency Allowance
      The present income tax allowance for children is that $1000 per child can be deducted from income before calculating the tax. In taxes saved, a child is worth more in a high-tax bracket than in a low bracket. On the other hand, the expenses attributable to an extra child for a family with an income of $15,000 is probably much closer to the $1000 allowance than are the expenditures attributable to an extra child in a family of similar size with an income of $60,000.
      It can be argued that the difference between no children and three children at a family income of $60,000 is far greater than the $1000 per child allowed as untaxable income, and that it makes sense to enlarge that allowance at higher incomes.
      It can also be argued that raising the allowance at higher incomes will reduce the progressivity of the tax, allowing just another benefit to wealthier families while poorer families would get no such relief.

      1. Explain how you would choose between these two points of view, or reconcile them, in recommending how to handle children in the income tax.
      2. would your answer to (a) be any different if the dependency allowance were a tax credit rather than a deduction from income?
  1. A tax is called “progressive” if the amount paid rises more than proportionally to income, “regressive” if less, and “proportional” if the ratio of tax to income is uniform. The word “progressive” also suggests “fair” or “liberal” and “progressive income tax” tends to have both meanings. with either meaning it is sometimes hard to determine which among two or more tax schedules, or changes in a tax schedule, or more or less “progressive,” or exactly what change in rates should be characterized as preserving the same progressivity.
    Below are six income-tax schedules.
    Indicate how you would go about ranking them, or comparing them, in their “progressivity.”
    Would you need to know something about the underlying distribution of income to make the comparison?
    If so, explain.
Income Bracket $000 Percentage rate on income in bracket
A B C D E F
0 – 6 0 0 0 0 0 17
6 – 12 15 10 10 0 0 29
12 – 24 20 15 13 30 5 27
24 – 48 30 25 20 30 31 45
48 – 100 50 45 33 60 45 58
100 – 200 75 70 50 70 73 79

Compared with Schedule A:

Do one or more of the schedules raise or lower all taxes in the same proportion? Which ones?

Do one or more raise or lower all taxes by the same proportion of income? Which ones?

Do one or more raise or lower all income after taxes in the same proportion? Which ones?

Does one or more of them have the same progressivity as A?

Do any two of them have the same progressivity as each other?

Among them all, including A, which is least progressive and which most, and how do you rank the others?

NOTE: Because the rates go stepwise, any change will affect somewhat differently people at different points within a bracket. I suggest you make the comparisons at the bracket limits, i.e. at $6, $12, $24, $48, $100, and $200.

Source: “The Income Tax”. Photocopy reproduced in Economics Reading Lists, Course Outlines, Exams, Puzzles & Problems compiled by Edward Tower. Vol. 12 (July 1981): Public Finance Exams, Puzzles & Problems, pp. 9-17.

_________________________

T. C. Schelling/Harvard University
ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES
AND PUBLIC POLICY
Spring 1981

Ec. 1021
M- 228
EXAM QUESTIONS FROM EARLIER YEARS
  1. Proposed Policies for Evaluation
  2. Swine Flu Vaccination
  3. 55-Mile Speed Limit
  4. Worth of Saving Lives
  5. Crime Rates and Police Coverage
  6. Fire Protection
  7. Smoking in Class
  8. Saturday Sections
  9. Apartment House Heating
  10. Deposit on Cans and Bottles
  11. Smoking in Class: Another Room
  12. Library Air Conditioning
  13. State-University Tuition
  14. Nursery Schools
  15. Youth Fare
  16. Welfare and Work Incentives
  17. Dining Hall Problem
  18. University Parking
  19. Vouchers, Goods- (services)-in-Kind, or Cash
  20. Gasoline Mileage
  21. Elasticity of Response
  22. Property-Tax Exemption for Veterans
  23. Incentive Effects of Private Insurance
  24. Overbooked Airline
  25. Environment in the USA and the USSR
  26. Insurance and “Moral Hazard”
  27. Common Property
  28. The City
  29. Child Care

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

  1. Proposed Policies for Evaluation

      Without reaching any final conclusion about any of the actual or proposed policies listed below, indicate for each of them one or two important considerations that this course has brought to your attention.

      1. Individual fire-detection units have been developed that emit a distinctive noise when fire occurs in a dwelling; they cost about $35. It is proposed that federal funds be offered to the states for refunding $20 per unit, for up to two such units, to any landlord or homeowner purchasing such equipment, in any state that, through its fire-safety authority or its regulation of the fire insurance industry, makes such detection devices mandatory or that severely penalizes the insurance rates of homes without them.
      2. Public provision to low-income persons with specific disabilities, and to the low-income very elderly, of “taxi vouchers,” useable in payment of metered taxi fares, redeemable in cash from the taxi company, in some standard amount calculated to cover some minimum number of trips per month for which such disabled and elderly people would need transportation by automobile.
      3. Cheap postal rates on books.
      4. Free eyeglasses for schoolchildren who need them, li parent’s or guardian’s income is below some specified level (as documented by income tax return).
      5. Free admission to selected Harvard football games for non-academic employees of the University.
      6. Requirement that any disability benefits generally available to company employees be provided also for some specified length of time for pregnancy and child-birth.
      7. The restriction, as presently in Cambridge, of most side street parking to local residents, enforced by parking fines for all vehicles without local-resident stickers,
      8. A provision that Harvard clerical, secretarial, and similar non-teaching staff be authorized, with the permission of their immediate supervisors, to enroll for grade and credit in one undergraduate Harvard course during each academic year, at no charge and with official time off from regular duties during class hours.
      9. Requirement that all new apartment buildings provide separate metering of heat in each individual apartment, with separate thermostat or other controls on heat use.
      10. Preferential hiring of veterans in government jobs.
      11. Federal program to finance welfare benefits so that benefits will be uniform among all 50 states.
      12. Free gymnasium-locker-shower and other athletic facilities made available to all employees of a large corporation, as a fringe benefit of likely value to employee health.
      13. On days when the weather makes it advisable to curtail sharply the volume of traffic on the Mass. Turnpike Extension (from the western suburbs to downtown Boston) put into effect, by radio announcement, the standby rule that cars will be admitted to the turnpike only if the first digit of the license plate is odd or even according as the date of the month is odd or even.
      14. Income-tax deduction or credit for home insulation expenditure.
      15. Life insurance equal to $50 thousand if single, $100 thousand if married, plus $25 thousand for each dependent child, for firemen and policemen killed in the line of duty.
      16. Unemployment compensation treated as “insurance” and not taxable as income.
      17. “Gasoline stamps” (patterned after food stamps) that low-income owners of registered cars and trucks can purchase at a discount, in limited quantities, as a cushion against the impact on low-income people of a federal gasoline tax.
      18. Mandatory deposit of 25¢ on every beer or soft-drink container purchased in Massachusetts, can or bottle, to be refunded upon return to any store where beer or soft drinks are sold, together with requirement that all containers sold in the state carry distinctive ineradicable markings to prevent wholesale turn-in of cans and bottles from outside the state.
      19. Mandatory $25 per year (for three years) increase in automobile insurance premium for every moving traffic for “safe” the proceeds used to reduce insurance rates drivers.
      20. The extra federal income-tax exemption for the blind.
      21. Federal income-tax deduction for contributions to schools.
      22. Rent control for persons over 65, for the disabled, and for certain other disadvantaged tenants.
      23. Exemption from minimum-wage law for youths under 17.
  1. Swine Flu Vaccination

      It is nearly forgotten now, but put youself back to January 1977: Forty million people had received swine flu vaccine. It was not clear whether an epidemic of swine flu might yet occur, and there was no final judgment on whether the vaccine itself entailed significant risk. Anywhere from 40 to 400 people were thought to have possibly died in consequence of the vaccine itself. It had been feared that a flu epidemic might ki11 40,000.

      A characteristic of vaccination is that the more successful the program, the less protection anyone needs. If everyone is vaccinated, you don’t need to be. And if the epidemic is averted, vaccination deaths may outweigh flu deaths.

      An important possibility in that January was that there remained a serious risk of swine flu but no sign of it yet, and that the publicity about some real or imagined fatal complications had made doctors afraid to offer the shots, patients reluctant to receive them, and health officials afraid to recommend them.

      Suppose it were January 1977 and you were convinced that comprehensive vaccination could entail some hundreds of deaths from the vaccine, that it could reduce flu deaths by tens of thousands if an epidemic were otherwise going to occur, and that the chance of an epidemic was about one in five if vaccination were discontinued.

      How would you evaluate the risks and benefits of stopping or proceeding with the program?

      What suggestions could you make on ways to induce people to get themselves vaccinated?

  1. 55-Mile Speed Limit

      The nationwide 55 mph speed limit that went into effect in 1974 was associated with a reduction in traffic fatalities for which no other explanation has been found. Suppose it becomes established that that speed limit, if enforced, will save three or four thousand lives per year with a commensurate reduction in injuries and automobile damage, but at some cost in truck and auto travel time and some cost of enforcement.

      The deaths and injuries, to say nothing of automobile damage, are worth taking seriously. The costs of slower transport and the lost work or leisure time have to be taken seriously. But I do not know whether the costs and benefits of enforcing the speed limit make the speed limit a good bargain in lives saved, a disproportionate nuisance for a minor reduction in mortality, or a toss-up.

      1. How would you help me reach a decision?
      2. Indicate the numerical information you would want to gather and how you would use it in estimating benefits and costs.
  1. Worth of Saving Lives

            Consider a costly program that is expected to reduce the likelihood of death within some identifiable segment of the population, and thus reduce statistically the number of deaths within that part of the population. In addressing the question of what it is worth to save those lives, i.e. to reduce those deaths, via that program, an important question is, Worth to whom? Who cares, and how much?

            Outline the way you would go about identifying the relevant interested or affected parties–individuals or governments–and how you might investigate the extent of their interest, especially the money value of their interest.

  1. Crime Rates and Police Coverage

      It has been observed that in some cities the incidence of armed robbery and illegal violence is kept at a low level by an effective response of the police, who, having a low level of violence to contend with, provide a deterrent likelihood of quick arrival. In other cities of similar social and geographic character the incidence of violence is so high that the police cannot answer calls promptly or investigate each incident. There is often no convincing explanation for the much greater prevalence of violent crime in the one case compared with the other-except, of course, the difference in effectiveness of police coverage. Yet examination shows that the numbers of police do not differ widely in the two situations.

      On the analogy of the “tipping” model, develop an analysis that could explain this phenomenon.

  1. Fire Protection

      Fire protection is nearly everywhere a city-government or town-government responsibility in the United States. It is (a) financed out of taxes and (b) provided by town employees using town equipment. By contrast, fire insurance is a private activity, homeowners buying it from private companies. Evidently there is a belief that the market cannot meet the need for fire protection: either people won’t subscribe or private firms won’t offer it. Or maybe there is just a custom that nobody questions.

      1. What are some plausible reasons why fire protection might not be left to “the market”?
      2. Do you think some of these reasons are decisive, and fire protection needs to be organized as it is?
      3. Can you think of any alternative approaches to fire protection that might be worth experimenting with?
  1. Smoking in Class

      In “The Economic Common Sense of Pollution” Ruff discusses the idea of charging people for their polluting activity, rather than simply prohibiting or permitting it. A familiar form of pollution is smoking in enclosed places where non-smokers are present.

      Suppose a special section of some class meets regularly in the evening. Some members of the class want to smoke; others complain of poor ventilation and object to any smoking. Somebody proposes that smokers might pay for the privilege of smoking.

      It is known that you have given some thought to the “pricing” of pollution, and you are asked whether it makes sense to charge for smoking and, if so, how to determine how much to charge and what to do with the proceeds.

Discuss it.

  1. Saturday Sections

      A course instructor generously offered to meet Saturday morning with interested members of the class to go over the week’s material, answer questions, etc.. Attendance was meager for a few weeks but picked up as the semester wore on, and by late in the term most of the class was showing up Saturday morning. The following year, the instructor made the same arrangement; attendance was meager for a few weeks and then fell off until only a few loyal participants were left. Even they were gone by the end of the semester.

      The instructor is perplexed at how one class was so eager while the other lost even the little interest it had. He is looking over the enrollments for the two years to see whether he can distinguish anything about the composition of the classes that would explain the difference. He wonders what to expect if he tried it once more. He’ll be happy for any advice you can give him.

  1. Apartment House Heating

      It is expected that many apartment buildings, especially among the lower-rent apartments, may again be unable to obtain as much heating fuel this winter as in past years, It is characteristic of apartments, especially the cheaper ones, that there is no metering of the heat consumed by individual tenants. If nobody takes steps to reduce heat consumption the building may run out of fuel for several days at a time, with frozen pipes and frozen people. If somebody takes steps to reduce the heat absorbed by his own apartment, usually nobody will notice–not his neighbors, not the landlord.

      Nobody has a good idea of how much reduction in heat consumption by individual apartments will be needed, as measured by anything the tenant can measure–e.g., room temperature, radiator temperature, etc. Some apartments require more heat than others to maintain the same temperature. (Corner apartments require more heat.) Some families have elderly people, babies, sick people. Some apartments are vacant most of the day, some are occupied all day.

      Nothing in any tenant’s lease makes any provision for heat control, rationing, rebates or extra charges.

      You are asked by some concerned tenants to help work out a reasonable way to minimize the risk of acute discomfort and danger due to exhaustion of fuel.

      Analyze the problem. State what data you would need in order to proceed. Outline at least one solution you would pro-pose, or several alternatives. And indicate how you might persuade tenants and landlord to accept your proposal in the event they fail to appreciate its merits or exaggerate its defects.

  1. Deposit on Cans and Bottles

      Legislation has been introduced to require a deposit on every beer or soft drink can or bottle, the deposit returnable upon return of the container. There are interests in favor and interests opposed. There is rarely discussion of how large the deposit should be–five or ten cents seems to be what people expect. The stated purposes are primarily to reduce littering and secondarily to conserve materials and energy by re-using containers or recycling materials.

      What would you want to take into account–and what facts would you want to investigate–if it were up to you to choose and justify the amount (or amounts, if variable) that the deposit should be, if there were to be a deposit.

  1. Smoking in Class: Another Room

      Consider a classroom of students among whom some like to smoke, some find it disagreeable, and some don’t care. There is dispute whether smoking should be prohibited. (It has traditionally been permitted but complaints have been frequent.) An alternative room is available, one with an air conditioning system that will mitigate the smoke nuisance for both smokers and non-smokers.

      The air-conditioned room costs extra, and the extra cost will have to be borne by the students.

      1. How would you determine whether the air-conditioned room is worth the cost? Be explicit about your criterion of “worth.”
      2. How would you propose the extra cost be paid–by which students and in what proportions?
  1. Library Air Conditioning

      A group of citizens has tried to get the town to spend $20,000 to air condition the library. They argue that the building is hot and stuffy in summer and the utilization of the library and the quality of the experience are diminished. For two years the proposal has gone before the town’s governing body, and both times it has been defeated. The opposition argues that the tax rate is out of hand anyway and this is a frill that will benefit a few at the expense of everyone.

      The question will arise next year and the town leaders want to put this issue to rest. They have no axe to grind, just want the question settled. You have been requested to prepare an analysis and a recommendation.

      1. How would you frame the issue for analysis?
      2. What data would you want to evaluate different choices?
      3. Are there sources of money other than town-wide tax support that you would consider?
  1. State-University Tuition

      Radio station WBZ editorially has opposed the principle that a state university ought to charge residents a tuition of only one-fifth the usual tuition at comparable private universities, arguing that student loans and occasional scholarships coupled with regular tuition payments would be more justifiable.

      A recent court decision called into question the right of state universities to charge higher tuitions to nonresidents than to residents of the state.

      Evaluate the idea of low tuition for state residents at state universities, with attention to the following questions:

      1. Why should tuition be low compared with other universities?
      2. Why should tuition be subsidized only at the state university and not at any university in the state?
      3. Why should tuition be low only for residents of the state?
      4. Why should tuition not be similarly subsidized for state residents who get their education at colleges outside the state?

      Be sure to discuss who benefits and who loses, what the effect may be on college attendance, and what the effect may be on attendance at the state university.

  1. Nursery Schools

      Some of the most expensive private schools, from nursery schools to colleges, provide scholarships for a few children whose parents could not afford the tuition. The system is challenged as inappropriate charity by some tuition-paying parents, and defended by others as a way of sharing privileges that only a few can otherwise afford. Nursery schools are usually not endowed, so the costs of scholarships are borne by the parents who pay tuition for their own children.

      If you were asked to speak on this issue at a meeting of nursery school parents, on grounds that you have taken this course, what are the main points you would make to help the parents think about the issue?

  1. Youth Fare

      The Civil Aeronautics Board gave notice that “youth fare” had to be terminated. (Youth fare was lower fares for young people, usually with some loss of priority to the youths taking advantage of it.) The argument was that youth fare discriminates against other passengers.

      Discuss the “discriminatory pricing” represented by the youth fare, indicating who is likely to gain and who to lose, with what effect on average fare, volume of travel, passenger convenience, and so forth.

      Identify any significant distributional implications of the particular groups or classes that appear to gain and to lose.

      What do you consider to be the chief socio-economic or other characteristic of “youth” that one ought to have in mind in considering the merits of youth fare?

  1. Welfare and Work Incentives

      If a welfare program assures every eligible family a specified minimum income, providing the difference between actual earnings and that minimum, the incentive and the opportunity to work gainfully are said to be impaired by a “100 percent income tax.” But without some assured minimum many families will fall below any decent standard of living.

      1. Explain the basic dilemma.
      2. Discuss proposed solutions.
      3. Evaluate the difficulty of finding an ideal solution to the problem.
  1. Dining Hall Problem
    1. Evaluate these alternative ways to distribute food and to assess costs in a graduate school dining hall.
      1. At every mealtime there is a fixed menu. Everybody gets the same meal and the same quantities. Total cost is divided equally among all those eligible to use the dining hall.
      2. As in No. 1 there is a fixed menu, but everybody eats as much as he pleases. The total amount of food is the same as in No. 1; and if some take more than their share and none take less, the last to arrive will face shortages. The cost is assessed in equal shares.
      3. Substantial variety is offered; everybody helps himself to whatever he likes, as much as he likes; adequate supplies are made available. Everybody is assessed an equal share of the total cost.
      4. A cheap meal is offered free; a variety of more expensive meals can be purchased a la carte. The cost, less the proceeds, is divided among the members.
      5. Same as No. 1, but the menu is fixed for each day of the week and known to all. People are charged only for the meals they eat, and may eat elsewhere. All meals count the same in everybody’s monthly bill.
    2. What difference will it make—
      1. if individual dishes (and beverages, rolls, etc.) are in such form that they can be shared, given away, or traded among diners;
      2. if every member is issued a specified number of transferable guest passes each month;
      3. if every member has a pass, good for each mealtime, and anyone holding the pass will be admitted without further identification.
  1. University Parking

      A university possesses some parking area and finds that the number of employees who need parking has grown to twice the number of spaces available. Alternative public parking off campus is expensive. Numerous proposals have been made about what to do:

      1. Assign non-transferable parking stickers to half the employees. Do this (a) by seniority, (b) by lottery, or (c) any other selection system you propose.
      2. Same as a but let the stickers be sold, traded, or given away by the recipients.
      3. Assign spaces to those who live farthest away where there is no public transportation.
      4. Convert university parking space into public parking lots, charging admission to the general public like any other commercial parking lot.
      5. Give all employees who drive to work one ticket and “sell” parking to university employees at a “price” of two tickets per space, letting everybody choose whether to sell his ticket to another employee or to buy somebody’s ticket and acquire a parking space.

      Make a recommendation and support it with the best argument you can construct. You need not recommend one of the above alternatives, but you must indicate why the scheme you recommend is superior.

  1. Vouchers, Goods- (services) -in-Kind, or Cash

            What are the central issues raised by the choice between giving people (1) such things as food stamps, school vouchers, trash collection vouchers, as against giving them (2) goods in kind, e.g., free lunches, or free schooling, or free trash collection, as against giving them (3) cash. Discuss the principles that should govern the choice, and illustrate your answer by three examples that highlight significant differences. (If you like, use food, schooling, and trash collection. If not, use any three that help you make your points.)

  1. Gasoline Mileage

      A major reason for U.S. dependence on foreign oil is that American automobiles get poor gas mileage. Three alternative remedies might be:

      1. Prohibit production of cars that get less than some specified miles per gallon;
      2. Put a tax on new cars that is related to gas consumption, high on cars with poor mileage while fuel-efficient cars pay a small tax or no tax or even receive a rebate;
      3. Tax gasoline, not automobiles.

            Evaluate the three proposals in terms of what you have learned in this course.

  1. Elasticity of Response

      Some policies are motivated by an interest in changing the way people behave; others are intended to compensate people for the results of the marketplace or for extraordinary misfortune. Few policy measures are without some induced change in behavior, whether the change is intended or not.

      Discuss the “elasticity of response” as a factor in policy evaluation. By “elasticity of response” is meant the degree to which behavior is affected by the policy.

      Discuss the kinds of policies for which a high elasticity will frustrate the policy or make it too expensive, and the kinds that in contrast are justified by a high elasticity.

      Give examples of both kinds. Your examples may be from income taxation, medical insurance, welfare programs, resource conservation, pollution abatement, or any field that interests you.

  1. Property-Tax Exemption for Veterans

      Many states provide benefits to veterans–mortgage guarantees for purchase of homes, civil-service preferences, certain kinds of tax exemption.

      One proposal is that, as a benefit pertinent to young veterans raising families, every veteran should receive some stipulated exemption from property taxes within the state, possibly a specified amount or percentage to be subtracted from the assessed valuation on his property before the tax rate is applied.

      (The mechanisms for this may be complex, since states might have to reimburse towns, which impose most of the property taxes, but suppose that the internal finances can be worked out.)

      Evaluate the proposal.

      Identify the purposes it may serve.

      Identify any important distinctions and details that would make a major difference in the proposal.

      Assuming that some state resources were to be made available for returning veterans, identify one or two alternative proposals that, at about the same aggregate cost, might come closer to meeting the criteria by which you judge such a program.

  1. Incentive Effects of Private Insurance

      An important principle in the analysis of social insurance programs is that incentive effects, many of which will be perverse but some may be beneficial, should be watched out for. Briefly discuss the incentive effects you might want to watch out for–and how you would evaluate them–in any policy designed to encourage, to discourage, or to rely on, the following kinds of private insurance that might be available in the market.

      Assume that in each case the insurance pays compensation in cash.

      Give some thought to who does the insuring–e.g., the customer’s own heating-oil company in (c).

      1. Insurance against loss due to burglary.
      2. Insurance against being convicted of burglary.
      3. Insurance against running out of heating fuel.
      4. Insurance against receiving a grade lower than some specified grade in a graduate course.
      5. Insurance against running out of gasoline during a gasoline shortage (for any reason).
      6. Insurance against losing money in the resale of a house in a “declining neighborhood.”
      7. Insurance against auto collision during hazardous driving conditions.
      8. Insurance against the cost of emergency help in the event of dead batteries, flat tires, or being trapped by snow in one’s driveway.
      9. Insurance against all medical costs incurred during a hospital stay.
  1. Overbooked Airline

      An airline oversubscribes a flight and by scheduled flight time has 140 passengers with valid reservations and only 120 seats on the plane, which will depart two hours late because of late arrival, so there are nearly two hours in which to decide what to do. There are no established rules to cover the situation. The airline has no record of the dates on which people made their reservations. The passengers have been informed of the situation but not told what the airline proposes to do. You are to advise the airline right now.

      Pick one among the following procedures, or make up a procedure of your own that is not on this list, and defend it by comparing it with what you think are the most serious or attractive alternative procedures listed.

      1. Issue boarding passes randomly by drawing names out of a hat, making clear to the passengers that the names have been shuffled to guarantee randomness.
      2. Announce that the flight will be delayed until 20 people have either cancelled their reservations or made other arrangements, boarding the 120 still remaining.
      3. Have everyone hand sealed bids for places on the plane. The highest 120 bids are selected and the money collected. The amount collected is distributed among some or all of the 140 passengers in any manner you choose–equal shares to everyone, equally to those who did not bid high enough to get on, or whatever seems appropriate to you.
      4. Announce that spaces will be allotted according to the dates when reservations were made, the earliest 120 reservations to be given seats on this flight, and call out 120 names as though the airline actually had those dates available.
      5. Simultaneously raise the price of going tonight and lower the price for going tomorrow until you find a pair of prices at which:
        1. exactly 120 wish to go tonight, and
        2. the airline breaks even, that is the discount to the 20 who go tomorrow equals, in total, the surcharge on the 120 who go tonight.
      6. Issue 120 boarding passes by random selection—making clear the passengers understand that the names have been shuffled and the selection is random–but announce that the boarding passes are transferable, passengers may transact any business they wish with their boarding passes–e.g., a couple travelling together that obtains only one pass may attempt to buy a second pass or to sell the one they have and go together later.

Additionally, answer the following:

      1. Which among these procedures would be more acceptable if everybody knew in advance what the standard procedure would be in this situation?
      2. Which among these procedures would be less attractive if everybody knew in advance what the procedure would be.
      3. Which procedures are most likely, if they are the acknowledged general rule for these situations, to induce the airline to book the right number of people for each flight? (By the way, what is the right number for each flight that the airline ought to book?)
  1. Environment in the USA and the USSR

      In his chapter on Environmental Disruption, Marshall Goldman compares environmental destruction in the Soviet Union with that in the United States, finding not only that there is such a problem in both countries but that the specific occurrences look much alike. It is often supposed that in the United States businesses will disregard the environmental damage which they do because they are in pursuit of profit; it is often supposed that no such motives would obtain in a socialist economy. It may come as a surprise that in an economic system without the profit motive there is similar disregard for the environment.

      How does Goldman explain the parallelism in the way the environment fares at the hands of these two dissimilar social and economic systems? How persuasive do you find his analysis?

  1. Insurance and “Moral Hazard”

      It is often argued that insurance may be self-defeating because of “moral hazard,” the tendency for people, once insured against some risk, to skimp precautions against the risk. People whose homes are insured against fire take fewer precautions against fire than if they had no insurance; people insured against theft may decorate their homes with more valuable objects than if they were uninsured.

      For the contrary it is also argued that insurance frees people from the necessity to go to expensive lengths to guard against fire or theft, and that what is sometimes derrogated as “moral hazard’ is merely the efficient substitution of insurance for the more expensive alternative, protection. Better to pay $1 per $1,000 of home value per year to cover the cost of a house or two destroyed by fire than to spend $3 per $1,000 of value in protection, especially when the protection is imperfect.

      Evidently these two views of insurance conflict. Presumably they conflict whether the insurance is privately purchased on the market or publicly provided by government. If you were asked which of the two views is the correct one, or are both views in the wrong, what answer would you give?

  1. Common Property

In his article on a “Common-Property Resource: The Fishery,” Scott Gordon (in the book edited by Dorfman and Dorfman) likens the problem of the fishery to that of hunting and trapping, the drilling for petroleum from a common underground pool, and the use of common pasture for private animals in the medieval “common.”

State succinctly the nature of the general problem of common-property resources of the kind he investigates.

Give an example or two of your own.

Indicate some of the ways that these different variants of the same general problem may be solved.

  1. The City

Wilbur Thompson, in the article contained in Hochman’s, The Urban Economy, refers to “The City as a Distorted Price System.

Can you explain what he means by this characterization?

Can you give a few examples?

What does he say (or imply) ought to be done about it?

Do you have an opinion on that?

  1. Child Care

In her article on federal support for child care, in the Haveman and Margolis book, Alice Rivlin cites figures that “acceptable” day care for a pre-school or school-age child would cost around $2,000 per year. The figures were from 1968; with inflation it might be over $3,000 now. Among the arquments in favor of federal support for day care is the desirability of permitting comparatively poor mothers to work out of the house and augment their earnings.

Rivlin discusses the issue of extending federally financed day care to middle-income families (up to $12,000 per year at the time she wrote, equivalent to perhaps $16,000 now). If you do, she says, it’s expensive. If you don’t, you have the equivalent of a high “income tax” on poor women’s earnings.

Explain the dilemma.

Is it the same as the “welfare dilemma” discussed in connection with the negative-income tax?

How would the dilemma be affected if the women were given cash that they could spend on day care or on anything else they might prefer to spend it on?

Source:  Thomas C. Schelling, Economic Principles and Public Policy (Harvard, Spring 1981). Exam Questions from Earlier Years. Photocopy reproduced in Economics Reading Lists, Course Outlines, Exams, Puzzles & Problems compiled by Edward Tower. Vol. 12 (July 1981): Public Finance Exams, Puzzles & Problems, pp. 18-38.

Image Source: File photo from 1983 Harvard News Office. The Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University. “In Memoriam: Thomas C. Schelling, 1921–2016”

 

Categories
Agricultural Economics Chicago Policy

Chicago. Agricultural political economy of the Marshall Plan. T.W. Schultz, 1948

The first of the two newspaper clippings below was found in the economics department file in the papers of the University of Chicago president Robert M. Hutchins. Owning Harvard appears to have worked as click-bait in Chicago for quite some time.

__________________________

U.C. Professor Tells Off Harvard
On Marshall Plan

BY GEORGE WELLER
Daily News Foreign Service

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — A farm-bred teacher from the University of Chicago boldly gave Harvard the hotfoot on the Marshall plan last weekend.

Charging in substance that the Marshall plan has become a gigantic export racket, Prof. Theodore Schultz, head of Chicago’s department of economics, provided Harvard’s dominantly pro-Marshall faculty and students with their stiffest criticism in months.

Schultz’s challenge, that the Marshall plan is actually an adventure in state-trading contrary to American principles, has set Cambridge buzzing.

Sees Profit Motive

The Chicagoan told meetings of both students and professors that well-heeled lobbies of industrialists and farmers were backing the European recovery program for profits rather than for European recovery.

The Marshall plan in operation, if not in inspiration, is prolonging artificial ‘prosperity’ by government buying of surpluses at inflated prices, Schultz charged.

The views of this Midwesterner, who is known for leading the ‘oleomargarine revolt’ at Iowa State University [See: Paul B. Burnett (2011) “Academic Freedom or Political Maneuvers: Theodore W. Schultz and the Oleomargarine Controversy Revisited”.], broke with star-shell effect at Harvard because only Communist or Wallace opposition to the Marshall plan has so far gained much hearing.

The ambassadors of France, Britain and the Netherlands are lecturing here in favor of European aid.

“Dumping Operation”

Schultz threw discord into this chorus of agreement by charging that the Marshall plan is actually a vast dumping operation aimed to relieve a glut of farm and industrial products and head off price declines.

Schultz agreed with Harvard’s distribution expert, Prof. Seymour Harris, that many American middlemen, besides manufacturers and farmers, are planning to get their slices of Marshall money before aid leaves American shores.

Advance Orders

The Chicago teacher said he knew cases where European governments had placed advance orders with American exporters for filling only if Marshall aid is voted. Such conditional orders encouraged lobbies to push the Marshall plan through Congress, he suggested.

The Marshall plan is causing another split in American foreign policy, Schultz pointed out.

While American delegates at the Havana world trade conference are fighting subsidies and dumping, the Marshall plan is promoting state-supported exports on a colossal scale, Schultz warned.

Source: Chicago Daily News, Tues., March 2, 1948.

__________________________

Foreign Aid Held Possible Price Lever

The Marshall plan may be used by the government as a tool for keeping commodity prices high, Dr. Theodore Schultz, chairman of the University of Chicago department of economics, said yesterday. He also asserted food prices would have been 30 per cent lower in 1946 and 1947 if all food exported in those years had been retained in this country.

Schultz addressed the frozen food industry convention in the Stevens hotel sponsored by the National Association of Frozen Food Packers. He warned that the United States is in danger of drifting into a policy of dumping food supplies.

Plan “Misuse Likely”

“We are likely to misuse the European recovery program in this way by using it to support the existing commodity price policy,” he said. “When prunes or other commodities fall to the support level specified by parity, the Commodity Credit corporation will go into action and buy, routing its purchases to the European program. What could be simpler.”

In the few years immediately preceding World War II, 97.4 per cent of the United States’ food supply, including food imported as well as that produced in this country, was consumed domestically, said Schultz. In 1946 and 1947 only 90 per cent of the supply was made available to people in the United States. Had that 7.4 per cent difference been kept at home, it would have been enough to lower food prices approximately 30 per cent, he asserted.

Predicts Price Drop

Schultz predicted that most farm commodity prices would recede to 10 per cent below parity in three to five years, and assailed the parity system as obsolete. He said if the government maintains commodities at floor levels (10 per cent below parity on most) in a depression, it will “clog channels of trade” and make food prices higher than they otherwise would be.

Source: Chicago Daily Tribune. 18 March 1948.

Image Source: Theodore W. Schultz. University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-07484. Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Exam Questions Harvard Labor Policy Social Insurance Social Work

Harvard. Topics in Social Ethics. Outline, enrollment and final exam. Peabody et al, 1909-1910

 

The faculty teaching this course on selected topics in social ethics that was taught at Harvard in 1909-10 was based in the philosophy section of the School of Divinity. Social Ethics at that time was closely related to the economics department and its survey course Social Ethics 1 was a relatively popular outside field for economics graduate students. Social Ethics 4 appears to have been a course that went into greater depth on four topics: poor relief, government intervention/regulation, cooperation and immigration with emphasis on the normative issues involved. 

________________________

SOCIAL ETHICS 4
Course Announcement
1909-10

Selected Topics in Social Ethics (Social Ethics *42hf.).

— Subjects for 1909-10:
— The Ethical Approach to the Social Question. Professor [Francis Greenwood] Peabody.
— Sources of Relief in Cases of Need. Dr. [Jeffrey Richardson] Brackett.
— The Ethical Relations of the State to Industrial Affairs. Dr. [Ray Madding] McConnell.
— The Ethical Aspects of Industrial Coöperation. Mr. [James] Ford.
— The Ethics of Immigration. Mr. [Robert Franz] Foerster.

Lectures and prescribed reading. Half-course (second half-year). Tu., Th, Sat., at 12.

Source: Announcement of the Divinity School of Harvard University, 1909-10, p. 24.

________________________

SOCIAL ETHICS 4
Course Enrollment
1909-10

Social Ethics 41[sic]hf. Professor [Francis Greenwood] Peabody, Dr. [Jeffry Richardson] Brackett, Dr. [Ray Madding] McConnell, Dr. [James] Ford, and Dr. [Robert Franz] Foerster. — Selected Topics in Social Ethics.

Total 19: 8 Graduates, 8 Seniors, 1 Sophomore, 2 Divinity.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1909-1910, p. 45.

________________________

SOCIAL ETHICS 4
Final Examination
1909-10

  1. Discuss and illustrate by historical instances the ethical principles involved in the State’s interference with the individual’s freedom of contract.
  2. (a) Discuss Compensation for Accidents — Employer’s Liability; (b) Discuss Injunctions in Labor Disputes.
  3. Describe the constitution and business methods of the Civil Service co-operative stores in London. State all points of divergence from Rochdale principles. What are the relative advantages or disadvantages of Civil Service co-operative methods?
  4. Do you believe that any form of co-operation could be instituted in New England villages with reasonable expectation of success? State reasons explicitly.
  5. “The girls have become convinced… that the only effective remedy for their unsatisfactory condition is a union, in full control of every shop on the side of the employees, and authorized to bargain with the employers on their behalf. They are willing that every one shall belong to the union.” How far do you consider that the remedy proposed by the striking shirt waist makers of New York may be effective? Explain the influence of immigration on wages in the United States.
  6. Discuss the connection of Immigration with: (a) poverty in the United States; (b) cycles of prosperity and depression; (c) municipal government in the United States.
  7. What are the effects of Emigration upon the countries from which it proceeds?
  8. In what degree are the ethical principles indicated in the Introduction of this Course, verified or illustrated in the case of: State activity; or of Co-operation; or of Immigration?

Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Examination Papers, 1873-1915. Box 9, Bound vol. Examination Papers 1910-11; Papers Set for Final Examinations in History, Government, Economics,…,Music in Harvard College (June, 1910).

Image Source: Picket girls on duty: Ladies’ Tailors Strike, New York City (Feb 1910). Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division.

Categories
Biography Economists Industrial Organization Policy Yale

Yale. Appointment to Council of Economic Advisers. Merton J. Peck, 1968

 

In an earlier post that featured a 1955 reading list for a course on industrial organization at Harvard taught by Carl Kaysen and Merton J. Peck, I proudly introduced that artifact with a few details about my first Yale economics professor, Joe Peck. I worked as his “bursary boy” over the next three years, undertaking the tasks of library runs, photocopying, and light editorial work to finance some of the out-of-pocket expenses of my undergraduate life. 

Peck was freshly back from the Council of Economics Advisers in the last year of President Johnson’s administration (1968), when I first encountered him as my instructor in the double-credit introductory seminar “Early Concentration Economics” in the Fall of 1969. Incidentally, the seminar was co-taught by another Joe, Joseph Persky, then a visiting lecturer from Harvard, where he was completing his Ph.D. dissertation. From those earlier regional/urban economics research days, Joe Persky has become a distinguished historian of economics.

Two documents regarding Merton J. Peck’s appointment as a member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers in 1968 are included in this post along with his obituary that was published in the Yale Daily News.

Fun Fact: In the obituary you will find a quote from yet another Joe, Joseph Altonji, now a Yale professor of economics, but then a fellow student with me in the graduate sequence of Statistics and Econometrics at Yale and my successor in the role of student assistant to Joe Peck.

_________________________

NOMINATION OF MERTON J. PECK
Monday, February 5, 1968

U.S. Senate, Committee on Banking and Currency
Washington, D.C.

The committee met pursuant to notice at 10:08 a.m., in room 5302, New Senate Office Building, Senator John Sparkman (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Sparkman, Proxmire, McIntyre, Spong, and Bennett.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee is meeting in open hearing on the nomination of Mr. Merton J. Peck of Connecticut to serve as a member of the Council of Economic Advisers.

Mr. Peck was born in Cleveland, Ohio, on December 17, 1925, and attended public schools in Shaker Heights and Medina, Ohio, as well as Evanston, Ill. He served in the Army from 1944 to 1946 with overseas duty in Okinawa and Japan. Mr. Peck graduated from Oberlin College in 1949 and took his graduate training in economics at Harvard, receiving his Ph. D. in 1954. He taught at Harvard College from 1954 to 1955, at the University of Michigan 1955-56, and the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration 1956-61. During 1961 and 1962 Mr. Peck served as Assistant Deputy Controller and Director of System Analysis in the office of Charles J. Hitch, the Assistant Secretary of Defense.

In 1963 Mr. Peck was appointed professor of economics at Yale University. In July 1967 he was appointed chairman of the Yale Economics Department.

Mr. Peck, I welcome you to the committee. We are glad to have you with us this morning. We have a more complete biographical sketch which will be printed in the record.

(The information follows:)

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF MERTON J. PECK

Merton Joseph Peck was born in Cleveland, Ohio, on December 17, 1925, and attended public schools in Shaker Heights and Medina, Ohio, as well as Evanston, Illinois. He served in the Army from 1944 to 1946, with overseas duty in Okinowa and Japan.

Mr. Peck graduated from Oberlin College in 1949 and took his graduate training in economics at Harvard receiving his Ph. D. in 1954. He taught at Harvard College (1954-1955), University of Michigan (1955-1956), and the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration (1956-1961).

During 1961 and 1962 Mr. Peck served as Assistant Deputy Controller and Director of System Analysis in the Office of Charles J. Hitch, the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Controller).

In 1963 Mr. Peck was appointed Professor of Economics at Yale University. In July 1967 he was appointed Chairman of the Yale Economics Department.

Mr. Peck has written Competition in the American Aluminum Industry, 1945–58 (Harvard University Press 1961), and he is a joint author of Economics of Competition in the Transportation Industry (Harvard University Press 1959), Weapons Acquisition: An Economic Analysis (Harvard Business School 1962), Technological Change, Economic Growth and Public Policy (Brookings Institution 1967). He has also contributed articles to various professional journals

Mr. Peck married Mary McClure Bosworth in 1949. They have four children: Richard, age 13; Katherine, age 11; Sarah, age 9; David, age 7. The Pecks reside in New Haven, Connecticut.

Mr. Peck’s parents died when he was young and he was raised by his aunts, Mrs. A. R. Lyon and Miss Olive S. Peck, who now reside in Arlington, Virginia.

Mr. Peck is a member of the American Economic Association, the Econometric Society, and the Association of American University Professors.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Peck, I also have a letter addressed to me which I shall read into the record.

“DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I regret that previous commitments prevent me from being present this morning to present the President’s nominee as a member of the Council of Economic Advisers, Mr. Merton J. Peck.

“It is an honor to introduce Professor Peck to this distinguished committee. Professor Peck was born in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1925. He graduated from Oberlin College in 1949, after serving 2 years in the Pacific theatre as a member of our Armed Forces. Upon receiving a Ph.D. degree in economics from Harvard, Professor Peck began a distinguished teaching career that led to his appointment last year as chairman of the Yale Economics Department. He now resides with his family in New Haven, Conn.

“Professor Peck combines a background of academic experience and public service, having served for 2 years in the Department of Defense as Assistant Deputy Controller and Director of Systems Analysis. Well known as an author on economic policy, he has published studies of competition in the aluminum and transportation industries. His latest book, published by the Brookings Institution, is “Technological Change, Economic Growth, and Public Policy.’

“I have touched only briefly on the accomplishments of Professor Peck, but they indicate the obvious ability and wide experience he would bring to the Council of Economic Advisers. I strongly urge that his nomination be favorably considered by this committee.

Sincerely,
ABE RIBICOFF.”

That letter will be printed in the record.

Senator BENNETT. Mr. Peck, is your official residence in Connecticut at the moment?

Mr. PECK. Yes, Senator; it is.

The CHAIRMAN. May I say we have the approval of both Senator Dodd and Senator Ribicoff. I may say for the record that accompanying Dr. Peck is Mr. Charles Warden, special assistant to the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

Senator BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, the official attitude of the Republicans on this committee has always been that the President is certainly entitled to select his economic advisers and we should under no circumstances raise any question about that privilege.
That is a kind of a negative endorsement, but in addition to that, I think Mr. Peck’s credentials are very impressive and I am sure all of the Republicans will be happy to vote for his approval.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Senator Spong?

Senator SPONG. I am impressed with Dr. Peck’s credentials. I would like to ask him a couple of questions, however.
Dr. Peck, have you ever been retained as a consultant by private industry?

Mr. PECK. Yes, I have.

Senator SPONG. Do you intend to end all such activities if you are confirmed and become a member of the Council of Economic Advisers?

Mr. PECK. Yes, I have.

Senator SPONG. You have ended it all?

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir.

Senator SPONG. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any interest in any undertaking or activity which you feel would constitute a conflict of interest?

Mr. PECK. No, I do not.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you checked your situation with the General Counsel of the Council of Economic Advisers?

Mr. PECK. No, I have not, but I will do so. I have a financial statement that I filed.

The CHAIRMAN. You have filed a financial statement?

Mr. PECK. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. With the Council?

Senator BENNETT. With us.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, with our committee?

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well; are there any further questions?

Senator BENNETT. No further questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much Dr. Peck. I wish you a successful and happy tenure in office.

Mr. PECK. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to this unusual post as a unique opportunity to serve and, if I am confirmed, I will do so to the best of my ability.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, and we shall hope to see you from time to time.

(Thereupon at 10:15 a.m., the committee went into executive session.)

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

(Excerpts from the Employment Act of 1946
and related laws follow):

EMPLOYMENT Act of 1946,
AS AMENDED, AND RELATED LAWS

(60 Stat. 23)
[PUBLIC LAW 304-79TH CONGRESS]

AN ACT To declare a national policy on employment, production, and purchasing power, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SHORT TITLE

SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the “Employment Act of 1946 “.

DECLARATION OF POLICY

SEC. 2. The Congress declares that it is the continuing policy and responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means consistent with its needs and obligations and other essential considerations of national policy, with the assistance and cooperation of industry, agriculture, labor, and State and local governments, to coordinate and utilize all its plans, functions, and resources for the purpose of creating and maintaining, in a manner calculated to foster and promote free competitive enterprise and the general welfare, conditions under which there will be afforded useful employment opportunities, including self-employment, for those able, willing, and seeking to work, and to promote maxi mum employment, production, and purchasing power. (15 U.S.C. 1021.)

ECONOMIC REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT

SEC. 3. (a) The President shall transmit to the Congress not later than January 20 of each year an economic report (hereinafter called the “Economic Report”) setting forth (a) the levels of employment, production, and purchasing power obtaining in the United States and such levels needed to carry out the policy declared in section 2; (2) current and foreseeable trends in the levels of employment, production, and purchasing power; (3) a review of the economic program of the Federal Government and a review of economic conditions affecting employment in the United States or any considerable portion thereof during the preceding year and of their effect upon employment, production, and purchasing power; and (4) a program for carrying out the policy declared in section 2, together with such recommendations for legislation as he may deem necessary or desirable.

(b) The President may transmit from time to time to the Congress reports supplementary to the Economic Report, each of which shall include such supplementary or revised recommendations as he may deem necessary or desirable to achieve the policy declared in section 2.

(c) The Economic Report, and all supplementary reports transmitted under subsection (b) of this section, shall, when transmitted to Congress, be referred to the joint committee created by section 5. (15 U.S.C. 1022.)

COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS
TO THE PRESIDENT

SEC. 4. (a) There is created in the Executive Office of the President a Council of Economic Advisers (hereinafter called the “Council”). The Council shall be composed of three members who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and each of whom shall be a person who, as a result of his training, experience, and attainments, is exceptionally qualified to analyze and interpret economic developments, to appraise programs and activities of the Government in the light of the policy declared in section 2, and to formulate and recommend national economic policy to promote employment, production, and purchasing power under free competitive enterprise.1 The President shall designate one of the members of the Council as Chairman.

(b) The Council is authorized to employ, and fix the compensation of, such specialists and other experts as may be necessary for the carrying out of its functions under this act, without regard to the civil service laws and the Classification Act of 1949, as amended, and is authorized, subject to the civil service laws, to employ such other officers and employees as may be necessary for carrying out its functions under this act, and fix their compensation in accordance with the Classification Act of 1949, as amended.

(c) It shall be the duty and function of the Council—

(1) to assist and advise the President in the preparation of the Economic Report;

(2) to gather timely and authoritative information concerning economic developments and economic trends, both current and prospective, to analyze and interpret such information in the light of the policy declared in section 2 for the purpose of determining whether such development and trends are interfering, or are likely to interfere, with the achievement of such policy, and to compile and submit to the President studies relating to such developments and trends;

(3) to appraise the various programs and activities of the Federal Government in the light of the policy declared in section 2 of this title for the purpose of determining the extent to which such programs and activities are contributing, and the extent to which they are not contributing, to the achievement of such policy and to make recommendations to the President with respect thereto;

(4) to develop and recommend to the President national economic policies to foster and promote free competitive enterprise, to avoid economic fluctuations or to diminish the effects thereof, and to maintain employment, production, and purchasing power;

(5) to make and furnish such studies, reports thereon, and recommendations with respect to matters of Federal economic policy and legislation as the President may request.

(d) The Council shall make an annual report to the President in December of each year.

(e) In exercising its powers, functions, and duties under this act—

(1) the Council may constitute such advisory committees and may consult with such representatives of industry, agriculture, labor, consumers, State and local governments, and other groups as it deems advisable;

(2) the Council shall, to the fullest extent possible, utilize the services, facilities, and information (including statistical information) of other Government agencies as well as of private research agencies, in order that duplication of effort and expense may be avoided.

(f) To enable the Council to exercise its powers, functions, and duties under this act, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

REORGANIZATION PLAN No. 9 of 1953

(Prepared by the President and transmitted to the Senate and the House of Representatives in Congress assembled, June 1, 1953, pursuant to the provisions of the Reorganization Act of 1949, as amended)

COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS

The functions vested in the Council of Economic Advisers by section 4 (b) of the Employment Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 24), and so much of the functions vested in the Council by section 4 (c) of that act as consists of reporting to the President with respect to any function of the Council under the said section 4 (c), are hereby transferred to the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. ***

1 The Postal Revenue and Federal Salary Act of 1967 provides that the annual rates of basic compensation shall be $30,000 for the Chairman and $28,750 for the other two members of the Council of Economic Advisers.

Source: On the nomination of Merton J. Peck to be a member of the council of economic advisers, February 5, 1968. Hearing Before the Committee on Banking and Currency, United States Senate. Ninetieth Congress, Second Session.

_________________________

Remarks by President Lyndon B. Johnson at the Swearing in of Merton J. Peck as a Member, Council of Economic Advisers, and upon Designating Arthur M. Okun as Chairman

February 15, 1968

Dr. and Mrs. Peck and family, Mr. and Mrs. Okun and family, Secretary Wirtz, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen:

I want to welcome all of you to this ceremony this morning.

I stand here with one eye wet and one eye dry. Gardner Ackley’s departure saddens me. I would hope that he feels the same way.

When Gardner took the CEA chairmanship more than 3 years ago, the economy was already setting peacetime records. He has kept the curve climbing, turning a youthful boom into a mature and solid 8-year expansion.

Of all the good advice Chairman Ackley has given to me throughout the years, I was happiest to accept one of his fine recommendations to appoint Art Okun as his successor.

Art brings many special talents to this new job. His forecasts are so amazingly accurate that one newspaper once called him the administration’s secret weapon.

Far away from the limelight, he has been invaluable to international monetary policy — to the Treasury Department in developing the Rio Accord — to drafting the new system of Special Drawing Rights. And I am relying heavily on Chairman Okun and the Council to help us move this Nation and all nations towards swift acceptance of these new monetary arrangements.

To fill the Council vacancy, we have Merton Joseph Peck from Yale University.

I am delighted that he joins Jim Duesenberry and Art Okun at this particular time. One of our most urgent concerns in the Nation now is price stability. We have recently created a Cabinet committee to concentrate heavily on this problem. Dr. Peck is an expert on markets. He will bring special insights to price and wage problems arising from structural imperfections in labor markets, product markets, and markets for services.

Looking around us as we meet here this morning, we see more and more evidence of our economic strength. The January unemployment rate, we are pleased to say, was the lowest in more than 14 years. Corporate profits for the last quarter of 1967 were pointing upward again–to new records.

But we cannot rejoice without recognizing the dangers posed by price and cost increases. To preserve our record-breaking prosperity, we must combine it with a return to price stability.

As we have long emphasized, the first order of business is the prompt enactment by the Congress of the penny on the dollar tax increase that we will need to pay for part of our extraordinary defense costs.

Second, we need full cooperation and restraint from business and labor in their price and wage decisions. Excessive wage and excessive price increases can weaken the dollar. They cannot win lasting gains for any group. The short-run sacrifices that we ask promise long-term benefits to all of us.

Third, we must work through the new Cabinet committee for structural improvements in every market — for greater efficiency, greater productivity, and greater incentives for cost-reduction and price competition.

I will continue to look to the Council of Economic Advisers for advice on guarding our prosperity against inflation.

I was talking to someone last night and he was outlining for me the progress that our country has made throughout the years. He said, “Mr. President, there are two things that a leader must never take his mind off of in our political system. You will have many messages and many bills, but two simple rules, I suggest.”

I said, “Tell me what they are” — because he was a man of wisdom and experience and nonpartisanship.

He said, “The first one is the buck-that dollar — it must be sound. It must be stable and people must have some of them. The next one is–you don’t have to be told that one, but I want to remind you every day — the ballot. Because through the ballot people can gain the rewards they think they are entitled to. They can bring about the reforms that are essential. They can turn into motion the revolutions that are inside of all of us and they can bring them to reality and bring them to reality constitutionally and appropriately, and as we human beings should. We don’t have to act like animals to get our revolutions and reforms translated into action. That comes through the ballot.”

So, if my economic advisers are not trained counselors on the ballot, they are on the buck and that seems to be a major portion of a President’s problem. I am going to continue to look to them to guard our prosperity against inflation. They will have the help of the President and I hope they will have the help of the Cabinet and the Congress and the business and labor communities.

The Council today enjoys a worldwide reputation, I think, a reputation of three wise men who have been responsible and are responsible in the future for guiding the American economic miracle.

We expect great things from you, Dr. Peck. I am happy to welcome you officially into the world’s smallest, but the world’s most vital fraternity.

Gardner, you are on sabbatical leave, but we will expect you to carry on your good work across the ocean.

Note:
The President spoke at 1:15 p.m. in the Cabinet Room at the White House. In his opening words he also referred to Secretary of Labor W. Willard Wirtz. During his remarks he referred to James S. Duesenberry, member of the Council of Economic Advisers, and to Gardner Ackley, outgoing Chairman of the Council, whose nomination as Ambassador to Italy was announced by the President on January 1.

Establishment of the Cabinet Committee on Price Stability was announced by the President in his message to the Congress transmitting the Economic Report.

The tax increase referred to by the President was enacted as the Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968.

Source:  Lyndon B. Johnson, Remarks at the Swearing In of Merton J. Peck as a Member, Council of Economic Advisers, and Upon Designating Arthur M. Okun as Chairman.
Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project 

_________________________

Professor led the Economics Department during its ‘golden age’

by CYNTHIA HUA
Yale Daily News, 18 March 2013

Merton Peck, a devoted teacher who chaired the Economics Department during its “golden age,” died in Florida on March 1. He was 87 years old.

A respected scholar and administrator, Peck came to Yale as an economics professor in 1963 and served as chair of the Economics Department for several terms in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. His former colleagues remember him for his kind and patient nature and ability to foster compromise during his lengthy tenure. In addition to recruiting many prominent economists to his department, Peck strengthened the faculty by keeping peace and oversaw a period of growth in the department, said Richard Nelson GRD ’56, a former economics professor.

“One of the reasons he stayed in the chair [position] for so long is because he was able to push the department upward and avoided conflict,” said Gustav Ranis GRD ’56, a economics professor. “He didn’t have any enemies.”

When disputes arose in the department, Peck listened to both sides and gently brought arguments to a resolution, Ranis said. He frequently met with faculty individually and ensured that all professors felt their voices were heard, Ranis said, adding that nobody in the department was ever upset under Peck’s leadership.

William Brainard GRD ’63 said Peck was respected among colleagues for the care and attention he devoted to teaching economics. His undergraduate seminars, Brainard said, were often so popular that he had to teach more than one section of the same course.

“He embodied many of the characteristics a professor should strive for, in being both a great scholar and giving a lot to Yale in terms of leadership,” economics professor Joseph Altonji ’75 said.

Brainard said Peck’s congenial personality and clarity of thought made him a sought-after adviser. Altonji, who worked for Peck as a research assistant and took one of his undergraduate courses, said Peck was influential in his decision to pursue a doctorate in economics and, later, to become a professor.

An expert in the economics of technology, Peck specialized in industrial organization and government regulation, producing books and papers that touched on numerous disciplines, including defense, communications and transportation. He served as a member of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara’s “Brain Trust” and on former President Lyndon Johnson’s Council of Economic Advisors in the 1960s.

Peck earned his bachelor’s degree at Oberlin College in the 1940s, during which time he met his wife, Mary Bosworth Peck, who died in 2004. The couple married in Oberlin, Ohio, in 1949, the year of Peck’s graduation from college. He went on to receive a doctorate in economics from Harvard.

During World War II, Peck served in the Signal Corps in Japan. His service abroad launched a lifelong interest in Japan that led to his later academic interest in the country and technology as an industry, said his son Richard.

Throughout his life, Peck remained modest about his intellectual and administrative achievements, Richard said. Outside of academics, Richard said Peck, who retired in 2002, cultivated a love of reading and jazz music.

Peck is survived by his children, Richard, Katherine, Sarah and David, and four grandchildren.

This article was updated to reflect the version published in print March 25.

Image Source: Chicago Tribune, Jan 4, 1968. Section 1B, p. 10. Newspaper image of Merton J. Peck touched-up at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

Categories
Macroeconomics Minnesota Policy

Minnesota. Address on Public Policy and the American Economy. Heller, 1986

The following pre- or post-dinner remarks by Walter W. Heller were spoken on the first evening of a two day symposium celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress (January 16-17, 1986). Eight regular panels and two luncheons-with-presentations featured distinguished academic, government and n.e.c. economists. Heller’s remarks were published as an appendix to the symposium volume. The chairperson of the JEC at the time was Rep. David Obey (Democrat-Wisconsin). It appears that the evening event was unofficial, probably sponsored by some other Washington policy-related institution.

Fun fact: At this symposium Herbert Stein uttered his famous quip “if something cannot go on forever it will stop.”  An earlier version did appear in Stein’s Wall Street Journal article “My Foreign Debt” (May 10, 1985). 

__________________________

PUBLIC POLICY
AND THE AMERICAN ECONOMY

Walter W. Heller, University of Minnesota

Remarks at the 40th Anniversary Symposium of the Congressional Joint Economic Committee,
(Washington, D.C. January 16, 1986)

                  Mr. Chairman, Honored Guests, and Most Honored Guests Senator Jack Javits (in absentia) and Congressman Dick Bolling:

                  It is a humbling, not to say awesome, responsibility to speak to this assemblage of the movers and shakers of the nation’s economic policy. As I thought about that term, it occurred to me that there really are three classes of economic policy makers—those who shake but don’t move; those who move but don’t shake; and then there are those in this audience tonight, those who both move and shake.

                  I’ve been asked to do the impossible tonight: examine 40 years of progress—and occasional retrogress—under the Employment Act of 1946 (and its Humphrey-Hawkins successor); the role of the Joint Economic Committee in this saga; the present state of our quest for greater growth, equity, and opportunity; and what direction that quest should take in the future. I was tempted to ask David Obey: “Is that all?”

                  At the obvious risk of repeating myself, I’ll say that to try to cover all that in my alloted 45 minutes will require me to talk as fast as my late Minnesota compatriot, former head of the Joint Economic Committee, of whom it was said: “Hubert speaks at a rate of 100 words a minute, with gusts up to 200.” Finally, I’lI try to be mindful of Muriel Humphrey’s gentle chiding, when she said, “You know, Hubert, for your speech to be immortal, it really doesn’t have to be eternal.”

THE POSTWAR ECONOMIC LANDSCAPE

                  In a period when government activism, especially in economic affairs, is under attack—indeed, when President Reagan, charming, disarming, and sometimes alarming tells the country that government’s impact on the economy is somewhere between baneful and baleful and that the greatest contribution he can make is to get governments clammy hands out of our pockets and government monkeys off our backs—against that background, the Joint Economic Committee’s 40th Anniversary is an especially appropriate time to take stock of the role government has played and should play in the economy. I will undertake to do that tonight in my usual fair, objective, detached, realistic, scientific, evenhanded, and nonpartisan way.

                  Let me begin with a broad-brush comparison of U.S. economic performance in the pre- and post-activist eras. Now that’s not just pre- and post-World War II, because inclusion of the Great depression of the 1930’s would make it a statistical cake-walk for activism. True, the fear of falling into another Great Depression was a prime mover in the passage of the 1946 Act. So one might reasonably claim that it should be included.

                  David Obey has made my task easier tonight by his superb overview of the post-war experience this morning. I am grateful to him for his lucid litany of the host of constructive measures that made up the web of policy activism to which so much of our postwar prosperity can be ascribed. And I won’t repeat his broad-brush review of the superior postwar performance—at least till 1973—under the new regimen of activist public economics. But I do feel duty-bound, as an economist, to put a statistical point or two on that performance.

                  First, with respect to comparative economic stability: Excluding the Great Depression of the 1930’s—for including it would make all comparisons a statistical cake-walk for economic activism—but excluding it, we find that the prewar economy spent roughly a year in recession for every year of expansion. Postwar, it has been one year in recession for every four years of expansion. Pre-1930 recessions were not only much longer but much deeper than postwar recessions, with a standard deviation relative to trend growth that was twice as great prewar as postwar. The shape of the typical prewar cycle was a deep symmetrical V, but postwar it was more of a shallow checkmark. Now, for those of you who are not yet sated with statistics on postwar stability, I refer you to a forthcoming JEC publication and to Charley Schultze’s Okun Lectures at Yale, also to be published soon.

                  Second, as to comparative economic growth: Here, updating some of Arthur Okun’s numbers, I find that the era of economic activism wins again. Compared with an average real growth rate of 2.8 percent from 1909 to 1929 (and 2.3 percent from 1929 to 1948), the postwar pace was a hefty 3.8 percent before slowing down after 1973 and lagging even more in the Eighties, as I will examine later.

                  Third, as to the comparative use of our GNP potential: The postwar activist economy operated far closer to its potential than the prewar economy. Measuring the “net gap” under the trend lines connecting prosperity years, one finds that the gap averaged 5 percent of GNP, prewar, even leaving out the Great Depression, but less than 1 percent postwar (from 1948 to 1979).

                  Now, where has that progress come from? You would not expect me to give the same answer that Richard Nixon gave an audience in Jackson, Mississippi during the 1960 campaign when he noted that the Mayor told him that they had had a doubling of population during his 12 years as mayor. Nixon went on to say: “Where has that progress come from? That progress has not come primarily from government, but it has come from activities of hundreds of thousands of individual Mississippians, given an opportunity to develop their own lives.”

                  Contrary to Mr. Nixon’s answer, I would agree with Okun that the improved performance record, especially the greater economic stability, must be credited to public policy. As he put it, “It was made in Washington.” The automatic stabilizing effect of a larger public sector—both on the tax and on the spending side—undoubtedly played an important role. Coupled with it was an aggressive fiscal-monetary policy that, while not always on time and on target, assured private decision makers that recessions would be relatively short and shallow and depressions were a thing of the past.

                  Paralleling the improved economic performance in the postwar era of economic activism was a dramatic decline in the incidence of poverty. From an estimated 33 percent of the population in 1947, poverty fell by one-third, to 22 percent, by 1960—a decline that must be attributed primarily to economic growth plus some increases in public assistance and transfer programs.

                  Then came the uninterrupted growth of the 1960’s coupled with the War on Poverty and other Great Society programs, which cut the remaining poverty in half.

                  Contrary to Mr. Reagan’s assertion that “in the early Sixties we had fewer people living below the poverty line than we had in the later Sixties after the Great War on Poverty got under way,” the President’s 1985 Economic Report (page 264) shows us that the percent of the population in poverty dropped steadily from 22 percent in 1960 to 19 percent in 1964 to 12 percent in 1969, and then bottomed out at 11 per-cent in 1973. From then until 1980, growing transfer payments just managed to offset sluggish economic performance, and poverty stayed in the 11 percent to 12 percent range until it shot upward in the 1980’s. More of that later.

                  Perhaps the most gratifying testimonial to the success of activist socio-economic policy is the striking advance in the economic status of the elderly, a cause with which Senator Javits has been so closely identified. Since the media have recently discovered and hence covered this phenomenon at length, I need only to cite one or two salient facts: 25 years ago, 35 percent of older Americans (65 and above) were in poverty. But 1984, that number had dropped to 12.4 percent, 2 points lower than the poverty rate for Americans overall.

DOWN MEMORY LANE

                  Now let’s turn some of the pages in our postwar economic history, partly to make a few points about good and bad policy and about the reshaping of the 1946 Magna Carta as the decades passed, and partly just to reminisce a bit, as seems appropriate on an anniversary like this. In doing so, one should not forget Jackie Gleason’s dictum that “the past remembers better than it lived” and the companion warning that “reason is to nostalgia as wind is to fog.”

                  The early postwar years were really vintage years in our fiscal policy annals. We ran appropriate surpluses (that alone shows I’m dealing in ancient history) in 1947 and 1948. Then, in mid-1950, the Joint Economic Committee, in one of its finest hours, recognized the inflationary potential of the Korean War and led the charge to reverse gears, i.e. to take a tax cut that was half way through the Congressional mill and help convert it to a tax increase. As has been true so often, it was providing the intellectual leadership in Congress on economic policy. But I must add that not everyone followed.

                  Joe Pechman will vividly recall those early-1951 days when we sat in Executive Session in the Ways and Means Committee room (side-by-side with Colin Stam and Charles Stewart) carrying the ball for the Treasury proposal for a $10 billion tax increase to fight off the inflationary consequences of the Korean war. As we made the case for that huge tax hike, the 88-year old chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, “Muley” Doughton looked at us sternly and said, “If I thought that even one dollar of that $10 billion was for those new-fangled ideas about fighting inflation instead of sending guns and tanks and planes to our boys in Korea, I’d vote against it.” As I recall, my response would have done credit to Cap Weinberger. (In passing, I might note that I’ve discovered the real reason why Mr. Reagan initially signed the Gramm-Rudman Bill without any ceremony. He feared that Cap might take his presidential pen and commit hara-kiri with it on the spot.) We got $7 out of $10 billion out of Congress. When Ike dismantled the Truman price-wage controls, demand had been so successfully curbed that wages and prices hardly budged. In fact, 1952-56 were years of calm on the inflation front.

                  But the rest of the 1950’s, with three recessions in 7 years, were hardly good years of economic policy. Economic signals were missed, the Fed slammed the brakes too soon, and relaxed them too late. It was not activist policy at its best.

                  Let’s jump to the Golden Sixties, truly a watershed, a revitalizing of the Employment Act of 1946. President Kennedy asked us to return to the letter and spirit of that Act and ended equivocation about the intent of the Act by translating its rather mushy mandate into a concrete call for meeting the goals of full employment, price stability, faster growth, and external balance—all within the constraints of preserving economic freedom of choice and promoting greater equality of opportunity. He went on to foster a rather weak-kneed anti-recession program in 1961 and a powerful growth-promoting tax cut program in 1962-64. In that process, I counted six firsts for presidential economics:

                  He was the first president to commit himself to a numerical full-employment target, namely 4% unemployment, and growth, namely, 4.5%.

                  He was the first to adopt an incomes policy in the form of wage-price guideposts developed by his Council of Economic Advisers. The guideposts, flanked by sensible supply-side tax measures to stimulate business investment, by training and retraining programs, and the like, helped maintain a remarkable record of price stability in 1961-65, namely, only 1.2 percent inflation per year.

                  He was the first president to shift the economic policy focus from moderating the swings of the business cycle to achieving the rising full employment potential of the economy. In that process, he moved from the goal of a balanced budget over the business cycle to a balanced budget at full employment. He was the first president to say, as he did in January 1963, that budget deficits could be a positive force to help move a slack or recession-ridden economy toward full employment.

                  As a capstone, he was the first president to say that a tax cut was needed, not to cope with recession (there was none) but to make full use of the economy’s full employment potential.

                  All of that may have been old stuff to economists, but it was bold new stuff for a President. I recall that the big tax cut proposal was greeted with grave scepticism by the community at large, but the JEC helped carry the mail and the message. Most vividly, I remember the JEC Hearing early in 1963, which was distinguished, first, by Gardner Ackley’s pioneering exposition, with charts and all, of the tax multiplier concept to the Committee, and second, by gaffe on the Puritan Ethic. When Martha Griffiths asked me why it was that the American people seemed so reluctant to accept this bonanza of a Kennedy tax cut, I suggested that it might be the Puritan Ethic. The next day, Johnny Byrnes, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, and a worthy predecessor to Bob Dole as the ranking wit in Congress—wound up his attack on me for denigrating the Puritan Ethic with this zinger, “I’d rather be a Puritan than a Heller!”

                  Those were the halcyon days of economic policy. Aided and abetted by the Fed the 1964 tax cut worked like a charm. In mid-1965, just before the July escalation in Viet Nam, we saw the happy combination of an inflation rate of only 1.5 percent; unemployment coming down steadily, to 4.4 percent; defense expenditures continuing their four-year decline from 9 percent of GNP in 1960 to 7 percent of GNP in 1965; and the cash budget running $3 billion in the black.

                  Then came the dark years of Viet Nam in economics as well as in foreign policy. Unlike 1950-51, we did not reverse gears in spite of the timely warnings of the Joint Economic Committee and most of the economists, both inside and outside the government, who were advising LBJ.

                  A case in point was my trip from Minnesota to the Ranch in late ’65 to plead for a tax increase. In the midst of an interlude of deer hunting on Lynda Bird’s “back 2000” from the LBJ-driven white Cadillac convertible—with George Hamilton as shooter and me as spotter—LBJ turned to me—perhaps I should say turned on me—and asked: “What do you want me to do, call Congress back into special session and rescind the repeal of those temporary excise taxes?” A wise and wily man. (As some of you will recall, those temporary excise taxes had been on the books since 1933 and were universally regarded as a good riddance.) He did not propose a tax increase until early 1967, and no tax action was completed until 1968, long after the inflation horse was out of the barn.

                  But that was an excess-demand horse, the kind we understood, the kind that even I warned against in my rather exuberant Godkin Lectures of 1966, those lectures in which I had said “Nothing succeeds like success,” but the London Economist unkindly corrected that to “nothing exceeds like success.” My references to the “treasured but treacherous territory around full employment” to the fact that “prosperity without a wage-price spiral” was “a goal that has hitherto eluded not only this country but all of its industrial partners in the free world” were understandably ignored.

                  As I put it in testimony before the JEC in July 1970, “there are no magic formulas, no pat solutions, no easy ways to reconcile full employment and price stability. No modern, free economy has yet found the combination of policies that can deliver sustained high employment and high growth side-by-side with sustained price stability.” That was all well and good, as far as it went, but in light of the experience of the 1970’s it did not go nearly far enough.

                  The policy travails of the Seventies are too well known to require lengthy review, especially in light of Chairman Obey’s deft characterization of them this morning.

                   First, there was the Nixon fiasco of freezes and phases serving as a facade for pumping up the economy with tax cuts, spending increases and a rapid run-up in the money supply, with sure-fire consequences of an overheated economy.

                  Superimposed on that were the supply shocks in 1973-74—oil prices quadrupling, food prices jumping 40 percent in two years, and other world raw material prices doubling in about the same time—that served to consolidate stagflation. The shocks, of course, were not just to the price level, but to the economics profession, led by Keynesians. We learned the sad lesson that as to wages and prices, what goes up, propelled by over-stimulated monetary-fiscal policy and a series of external shocks, does necessarily come down when the fiscal-monetary stimulus and supply shocks subside. We’ve learned a lot about sticky wages and prices that stay in high orbit even with (sic, “without” is probably meant here) visible means of fiscal-monetary support. At least, they stayed there until we administered a dose of sadomasochism, better known as the double-dip recession of the Eighties, the deepest since the Great Depression.

                  One should not recite the economic sins of the Seventies without acknowledging one bright fiscal episode, namely the tax rebate and tax cut enacted in the second quarter of 1975. Granted, it was a bit late to blunt the recession, but it provided a welcome boost to an economy that had fallen into what, until topped by the recession of the early Eighties, was the deepest recession since the depression. The 1975 tax cut was a winner in both size and timing.

                  Though prices behaved very well in 1976, when inflation averaged 4.8 percent (with the help of good crops and no increase in the real price of oil), the combination of an overly strong expansion (partly resulting from economists’ over-estimates of GNP potential) and the second oil price shock soon pumped inflation back into the double digits. It was a time for economists to be mighty humble—though I suppose one should bear in mind Golda Meir’s admonition: “Don’t be so humble, you’re not that great.”

                  As one surveys the whole period, activist economics and New Deal intrusions into the market place can surely take credit not only for building in strong defenses against depression but for 25 years (in 1948-73) of high-octane operation of the economy and sharply reduced instability. Within that framework, one can criticize anti-recession fiscal policy as often too little and too late, monetary policy as sometimes too easy and other times overstaying tightness. And surely, the far-too-late and considerably-too -little tax increase to finance the war in Viet Nam, coupled with excessive monetary ease in 1967-68, has to go down in the annals as one of the flat failures of post war fiscal-monetary policy.

                  Still it is worth reminding ourselves that even in the face of high performance, inflation of the 1949-72 period rose above 6 percent only once (during the Korean War) and averaged only 2.3 percent. If inflation was the price of activism in public economics, it was a long time in coming.

THE HAUNTED PROSPERITY OF THE 1980’s

                  Now, we have passed through the economic portals into the Eighties, the age of anti-government. Some of this actually began with that social liberal but fiscal conservative Jimmy Carter. I don’t refer to deregulation of transportation, communication, and finance where competition has a fair chance to do well what regulation did badly. Nor do I refer to the harnessing, where possible—that is without sacrificing public purpose and values—of market incentives, the profit motive, private self-interest to the accomplishment of public purpose. Using taxes or auction rights to make depollution profitable and pollution costly is a case in point. But I do refer to sluffing off functions and responsibilities on grounds that delivery of the services has been inefficient in the past or on grounds that there is an inevitable too-costly clash between efficiency and equity.

                  But I digress from the subject at hand, which I designate as our haunted prosperity of the 1980’s, a perceptive term borrowed from Al Sommers, of the Conference Board. Exactly what is it that haunts our prosperity in this new era of belittled government? The answer is sobering.

                  First, it is slow growth. After enjoying 4.2 percent annual real growth in the Sixties, and managing to average 3.1 percent even in the Seventies, we have slipped to less than 2 percent in the first six years of the Eighties. Even if we optimistically assume that there will be no recession in the next four years and an average 3 per-cent growth rate, the decade would come out with just a 2.4 percent real growth rate. And even if we adjust these numbers for the slowdown in the growth of the labor force, the Eighties as a whole seem destined to go into the economic annals as a period of pallid performance.

                  Second, we are haunted by resurgent poverty. The percentage of our population in poverty jumped from 12 percent in 1979 to 15.3 percent in 1983. Recovery brought the poverty rate down to 14.4 percent in 1984 but leaving aside the Reagan years, this is still the highest rate since 1966. It is worth noting that without cash transfers by the government, the poverty rate would be 25 percent and that with non-cash transfers like food stamps, the rate comes down to 9 percent. But even that is almost a 50 percent jump in poverty since the late Seventies. The tax and budget cuts of the Eighties undercut the incomes of the poor, and boosted the incomes of the wealthy. The tax reform proposal, embodying more generous earned income credits, standard deductions, and personal exemptions, would be a welcome first step in reversing this doleful story.

                  Third, we are haunted by wasted potential. With the unemployment rate, after 5 years, still stuck at about 7% and utilization of our manufacturing capacity stuck at 80 percent throughout the third year of expansion, we are wasting a big chunk of our productive capacity, presumably as a means of safeguarding the great and welcome gains that have been made on the inflation front.

                  Fourth, productivity advances have fallen far short of expectations. A respectable performance in manufacturing has been more than offset by disappointing productivity gains elsewhere in the economy.

                  Casually correlated, with this change for the worse in growth, poverty, and wasted potential are some other economic changes that haunt us.

                  From 1950 through 1979, the Federal deficit averaged less than 1 percent of GNP. Now, the deficit is stuck at more than 5 percent of GNP, most of it structural rather than cyclical.

                  The huge deficits and high interest rates have spawned an over-valued dollar and enormous trade deficits. From roughly $25 billion in the late 1970’s, readily financed by a flow of earnings from overseas investments the trade deficit zoomed to nearly $150 billion, with no offset from service earnings because we have become a net debtor nation. This dismal record on savings and investment is another concomitant of the huge budget deficit. Far from being in an investment boom, we have been on a consumer binge financed by liquidating our assets abroad, by gorging on a huge flow of imports, and by depressing national saving and investment to the lowest level since the 1930’s. Since this runs counter to popular impression, let me cite chapter and verse. First, net private saving—individual plus business saving minus replacement investment—ran close to its long-run level of 8 percent to 9 percent of GNP in 1984. Second, half of it had to be used to finance the federal deficit with the result that the national saving rate fell from 8 percent to just over 4 percent. Third, only by sucking in huge amounts of foreign saving was net investment rate held at about 7 percent of GNP. But savings and investment by Americans have dropped to the lowest levels in fifty years.

                  Apart from such damning economic development, the Eighties have also seen the rise and fall of what Herb Stein aptly calls “punk-supply-sideism,” to distinguish it from sensible classical supply-side policies for investment, productivity, and growth. Alan Blinder put the matter well when he said, “Monetarists offered statistical evidence with no theory. New Classicists offered an elegant new theory with no evidence. Combining the best of both tactics, supply-siders offered neither theory nor evidence.”

                  And that makes another point. With super-supply-sideism falling flat on its face, with monetarism failing to deliver, and with rational expectations, elegant as the theory is, proving to be a non-starter in the policy sweepstakes, Keynesians have regrouped, built Milton Friedman’s natural rate of unemployment into their models, developed a credible theory of wage-price rigidities and regained the intellectual and policy-oriented high ground in economics. By being eclectic, pragmatic, and realistic, the Keynesians have made a remarkable comeback. (If you think I’m grinding a doctrinal axe now and then, you are right.)

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

                  Where should activistic economics go from here? There are plenty of new ideas floating around—and even a few good new ideas—but none will make much difference unless we restore the essential conditions for faster and more sustained economic growth and stop the consumption binge fostered by the irresponsible fiscal policies we have been following in the name of letting the private economy breathe free. What a travesty: the monstrous deficits generated in the name of breathing free are depriving the body economic of the oxygen essential to the growth of private saving and investment.

                  David Obey made the case for growth in eloquent terms this morning. I won’t repeat it here. But it is worth reminding ourselves that it will take a skilled balancing act to put the economy back on the track of long-term growth while maintaining our expansionary momentum in the near term.

                  Clearly, the vital first step is to shrink the gigantic deficit that, to change the metaphor, is leeching the lifeblood out of growth by absorbing over half of our private savings. One has to hope that a Gramm-Rudmanized budget process will lead to a deficit disarmament conference and an agreement to couple tax increases with bearable budget cuts.

                  Second, even as we move fiscal policy toward restriction, we must maintain and even step up the level of aggregate demand in the economy. That’s where the high-wire balancing act comes in, namely offsetting the reduction in aggregate demand from a more restrictive fiscal policy by running a more stimulative monetary policy. That in turn means keeping one eye on the substitution of investment for consumer spending as the budget deficits shrinks and interest rates fall and the other on the shift of demand from imported goods to domestically produced goods and services as the trade deficits shrinks. There is nothing in the market economy, left to itself, that will make the necessary adjustments.

                  Third, we will need to adjust our structural policies, applying the classical supply-side precepts designed to beef up our productive capacity and productivity—everything from boosting investment in physical infrastructure, in human brain power, and in research and innovation, to stimulating private saving and investment.

                  Lurking in the background of this whole process will be the personal trade-off question: Is an attempt to improve our growth and expansion performance going to reignite inflation?

                  What does past experience tell us about the need to curb our appetites for expansion and faster growth? Is it possible that we are mis-applying past experience, that we are like the cat that sat on a hot stove and now won’t sit on a cold one? The tradeoff between unemployment and inflation may well have moved in our favor. With the hard core of inflation, namely, wage norms, coming down sharply, with plenty of excess capacity in the economy, and with these tendencies buttressed by falling oil prices and soft world commodity prices, isn’t it time to test the waters with a more expansion- and growth-oriented policy as outlined above?

                  And since there’s no guarantee that growth alone will reduce inequality—and worse, that with the incidence of poverty shifting so strongly to single-parent families and their children, there’s no guarantee that growth will lift all the boats—isn’t it about time that the richest country on earth (as we still are, in terms of both wealth per capita and annual goods and services per capita, according to the Kravis-Summers University of Pennsylvania studies), with the lowest taxes of any advanced country except Japan (and they are just a whisker behind us), and with the least socialized industrial economy on earth (as established by late seventies IMF data and a recent update by the London Economist), isn’t it about time that we stopped asking the poor to take the main brunt of the build-up of our defenses?

                  And isn’t it about time that we came out and said that it is a shameful thing to be gorging ourselves on imports and feasting on resources that ought really to be devoted to investment and growth, all in the name of hands-off economics and in the wake of irresponsible deficits and a White House that sees taxes, not as the price we pay for civilization, but as the root of almost all economic evil? And isn’t it time to stop shortchanging the future by stunting growth and running up huge foreign debts in what Rudy Penner calls “fiscal child abuse”?

                  The fear and loathing of deficits in Congress is palpable. The JEC and the Congressional Budget Office have spearheaded the drive to bring some sanity into fiscal policy. Indeed the record shows—as Norman Ornstein’s study for the AEI so clearly demonstrates that the Congress, as he put it, “thought (sic, “throughout”?) the broad sweep of American history, Congress has struggled to restrain the growth of Federal spending and to limit deficits on the public debt, through direct action and through periodic adjustments of its own structures to minimize the deleterious effects of political pressures.” He pays special tribute to the budget reforms of 1974, whose prime mover, Dick Bolling, we honor here tonight.

                  Thanks to courageous Congressional initiatives led by Senators Dole and Domenici, in 1982 and by those two and others in 1983-84, with the President playing tag-along, the deficit is at least $100 billion a year less than it otherwise would have been.

                  So while there is much to be said for a brave new world of innovation in public economics—I will let others prescribe it—our first order of business is to clear the fiscal decks for action, promote growth with some fairly orthodox measures, and use a modest portion of our vast wealth and taxable capacity to share more of our affluence with the poor and disadvantaged. That may be a bit old fashioned but show me something new-fashioned that would be better.

                  And this might just be the year when we will get on with it. Pursuing this thought, let me close with some words of hope with which Joseph Kraft ended one of his last columns: “Except in its blindest moments, the United States is not a country that sins against the light… Normally, on the contrary, the United States plays host to a humane society. Few things, certainly not the tyranny of abstract numbers, drive us to barbarous, even unfeeling behavior. So my hunch is, when all the figures come up on the table, when Gramm-Rudman is in its heaven; Americans will figure out a way to beat the odds. We will balance welfare and defense and investment and social improvement in a rough way that does not blight vast numbers of lives. Both in dealing with the Russians, and in dealing with ourselves, we will make good the promise of a turnaround year.” Amen !

Source: Appendix to “A Symposium on the 40th anniversary of the Joint Economic Committee.” Hearings Before the Joint Economic Committee, U.S. 99th Congress, 1st session (Jan. 16 and 17, 1986), pp. 893-899.

Image Source: Screen shot of Walter Heller from the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) The MacNeil/Lehrer Report (October 21, 1981). Image smoothed and cropped by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

 

Categories
History of Economics Policy Popular Economics

New York City. Centennial Celebration for Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. 1876

 

For the 1776th artifact to be posted in Economics in the Rear-view Mirror, I decided to search for something related to Adam Smith. I figured the Centennial, Sesquicentennial and Bicentennial of the publication of Wealth of Nations would be good places to start, so I turned to the newspapers.com archive to begin my search. The very first item I came upon was the Centennial Celebration that took place in New York City on December 12, 1876. After reading the New York Times account of the affair, I thought that more might be found in Glory M. Liu’s book Adam Smith’s America: How a Scottish Philosopher Became an Icon of American Capitalism (2022) and sure enough she uses that event as her anecdotal springboard into Chapter 3, “The Apostle of Free Trade”. 

Cringe Moment: John Bigelow found himself as an understudied understudy for no-show Williams College professor Arthur Latham Perry. The role demanded that he comment on the toast to the French liberal economists, predecessors to Adam Smith. Bigelow proceeded to riff on Jean-Baptiste Colbert, poster-child of French mercantilism. I am guessing that few if any of the guests noticed the faux pas.

______________________________

The Evening Post
(New York City, December 13, 1876), p. 1.

ADAM SMITH.

Centennial Celebration of the Publication
of “The Wealth of Nations”—

Speeches by William Cullen Bryant, Parke Godwin, David A. Wells, Professor Sumner, Mr. Atkinson and Others

The dinner given at Delmonico’s last evening, to commemorate the Centennial Anniversary of the publication of Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” was attended by about a hundred gentlemen, including many widely known as advocates of free trade. Among the persons present were Parke Godwin, Abraham L. Earle, Arthur G. Sedgwick, Professor W. G. Sumner, Horace White, Cyrus W. Field, William Cullen Bryant, David A. Wells, Edward Atkinson, of Boston, Professor Frank A. Walker [(sic) Gen. Francis Amasa Walker], President Anderson, of Rochester University; Isaac Sherman, Anson Phelps Stokes, William E. Dodge, Jr.; George Walker, Ex Surgeon-General [N.S.] Hammond, J. Crosby Brown, Secretary of State [John E.] Bigelow, Professor Atwater, of Princeton; Mr. Sidney Biddle, Mr. Balch and Mr. Brinton Coxe, of Pennsylvania; M. Henri Cernuschi, of Paris; Professor [Vincent] Botta, Robert B. Minturn, E. L. Godkin, Charles H. Marshall, F. B. Sanborn of Boston, O. C. Marsh, Howard Potter, Fred. Mason of Chicago, and Joseph S. Moore. [Also listed as having attended according to the New York Times (December 13, 1876, p 5): Charles Moran, Dr. M. K. Leverson of Colorado and Henry Arnott Brown]

                  After prayer by the Rev. Dr. Atwater the chair was taken by Parke Godwin, before whom lay an original edition of the “Wealth of Nations.” During the dinner, which was long and elaborate, music was furnished by an orchestra placed in the gallery.

SPEECH OF PARKE GODWIN.

The cloth having been removed, Mr. Godwin spoke as follows:

                  “Gentlemen, it is my duty to speak the prologue to your future performances, and I know no better way than to follow the epilogue in ‘Henry IV.,’ which says: ‘First my fears, then my courtesy and last my speech.’ I am here less because of my ambition, but because of the headlong obstinacy of my friends of the committee.” He then spoke of the large assemblage present in these times of great political excitement and said: “It is not often that men meet to do honor to a book. But we come together to commemorate not a work drawn out of the mysterious wells of the imagination, but a work treating of our every day affairs which has taken its place among the masterpieces of genius. It is just a hundred years since the work on ‘The Wealth of Nations,’ the work of an humble Scotch professor, first appeared. I take it that the only conception of the wealth of nations was that of the resources of a prince who could keep armies and fleets, subsidized allies, and pension a few very poor poets. But that labor was the real wealth, the real source of national power, they hardly conceived. Yet this work, which taught these truths, penetrated the minds of men, and now at this remote day and in this far land we are met to celebrate it as one of the greatest features of our Centennial. What was the secret of the success of this book? It can hardly be said that the author of this work was the originator of any great and important truth. Many of his conclusions had been anticipated in Italy and in England. But the earlier writers had only discovered the germs of the truth. They had not seen it to its efflorescence. The merit of Smith was that he saw the truth in its intrinsic force, he grasped it in its bearings and relations, and he developed it with such completeness and simplicity that he made it plain to the common apprehension, that he made it the property of men in the common walks of life, and not alone of the student in his closet or the speculator in his school. What a grand truth it was that such men as Smith have bequeathed to us! Kant was accustomed to say that true things filled him with awe; first, the view of the starry heavens, and second, the sense of duty in the soul of man. He might have added a third, that of the mysterious means by which the struggles of the soul in the social man is brought to an harmonious end. But what is society at large? Is there not for its stupendous ramifications of interest, for the vast enterprises which span the globe, a power which holds them in its large love and boundless thought? Aye, there is such a power; it is the power of Providence, the power of freedom, freedom of labor, freedom of interchange, which, demanding nothing of governments save the maintenance of justice and peace, is like the principle of attraction which reduces the far-flaming orbs of space into musical chimes, and will reduce our various conflicting arms into perfect order. The signal service of Adam Smith and his coadjutors was to demonstrate that the gospel was right and that human traditions were wrong. By an exposition of the productive efficacy of the co-operation of industrial groups — by a demonstration that all exchanges of products are not a one-sided spoliation, but a two sided benefit, they showed that human interests were reciprocally helpful and not mutually destructive. Attraction, not repulsion, was shown to be the true law of economic relations. When it was once seen that human interests are convergent and not divergent, the practices of individuals and of nations were made to conform to that view. Giant monopolies began to open their shut doors, and an era of emancipated industry and emancipated commerce broke over the world. Political economy, like other sciences, is still immature and imperfect: it has many deficiencies to fill out, many obscurities to clear, many problems to solve. But we who are here tonight know this — that the great beams of the edifice have been raised; that many downtrodden have found solace within the portals of this, the goodliest temple, I think, ever made — a temple in which the worship is the worship of free human uses, full of the profoundest human affections.”

                  The names of invited guest who were prevented from attending, and had sent letters of regret were then read. Among these were Governor Tilden, Lieutenant-Governor Dorsheimer, President Woolsey, President McCosh, Senator Bayard, William R. Morrison, L. Q. C. Lamar, Professor A. L. [Arthur Latham] Perry; the English Minister, Sir Edward Thornton; the Belgian Minister, M. Maurice Delfosse; Charles Francis Adams, Professor H. W. Longfellow, Ralph Waldo Emerson, W. Lloyd Garrison, R. H. Dana, Jr., H. W. Olcott and others [Also listed as having sent letters of regret according to the New York Times (December 13, 1876, p 5): President Elliott, President Champin, Charles Elliott Norton, Professor Dunbar, Estis Howe, James Brown].

SPEECH OF JOHN BIGELOW.

The first regular toast was read as follows:

“The Early French Economists” – Lights that preceded and announced the dawn. They were the first to discover and to proclaim that natural laws are a better basis for legislation than arbitrary authority.

In the absence of Professor [Arthur Latham] Perry [Williams College], who was expected to respond, Mr. John Bigelow spoke as follows:

                  “I am very sorry that Professor Perry was not able to attend. He was prevented from coming by his modesty, and he has asked me to come here to-night and represent him. I shall do so as well as I may. It is a source of regret to me that I am here in a representative capacity, and shall be unable to do full justice to the early French economists as either Professor Perry or the imaginary Mr. Bigelow you have described would have done. I will only say that they were a very noble set of people. That is all I shall say. I am sure your imaginary Mr. Bigelow could not have described them in fewer words. All the politico-economical teachers have been indebted, more than to any one else, to the man who first classified the industries of France, and by whose work the science of political economy became possible — I refer to Colbert. The work of Colbert in estimating and tabulating the work of every man in France had never been done before. Yet this was essential to the success of politico-economical science. I do not know but Bacon may have anticipated me in this remark, but if he has, so much the worse for Lord Bacon. It is a matter of regret that the Bureau of Statistics in this country has been less useful because of the inexcusable obstinacy of a gentleman present here to-night (Mr. David A. Wells) in resigning its charge. I wish to call attention to one fact in noticing upon this table the original edition of the work of Adam Smith. I don’t know why this work, the natural twin of republican institutions, has never been published complete in this country. My friend on my right says it has been. I can only ask, then, why I have never happened to meet a single copy of an American edition in this country. (A voice — that of Mr. Coxe, of Philadelphia — “An edition was edition was printed in Philadelphia in 1789.”) Then I will modify my remark and ask why we have not had an edition in the current century.” (A voice, “Give it up”) Mr. Bigelow went on to speak of the importance of a proper study of Adam Smith’s method, and said that the great drawback in this country is the waste of power in all the paths of work and business and investigation. He advocated as a great centennial work the publication of a new and complete edition of Adam Smith’s works.

SPEECH OF DAVID A. WELLS.

The second toast was:

“The Wealth of Nations”, — An imperishable monument of human genius, which laid the foundation of a science destined to revolutionize the legislation and practice of nations. At the end of a hundred years it is as instructive in its teachings and as beautiful in style as when it first attracted the attention of the world. Its author, Adam Smith, will be held in honor by his fellow men forever.

David A. Wells made the following response:

                  “Considering the condition of Europe from the time when it first attained a high degree of civilization, there is no question of more interest than that of the relations of nations and men. The prejudices and antagonisms, due to the belief that advantage to one community was necessarily a loss to another, naturally interfered with progress and advancement, and led to the belief, as expressed by Hobbes, that war is the natural condition of man. The restrictions that, until recently, hedged round all trades in Europe, and reduced men to practical slavery, were the outgrowths of this false idea. The right to practice a trade or profession was looked upon as an heirloom, transferred from one to another member of a family.” The results of this system in France and in the country were sketched, and Mr. Wells continued: “In this country, it even happened in 1865, under our absurd revenue law, that it became a question whether a man who mended a carriage had not really manufactured it and made himself liable to a payment of the duties on new carriages. War was often undertaken by European nations as a means of successfully monopolizing trades. It was for this cause that nearly all the battles of the eighteenth century were fought. Our own Revolution is directly traceable to the imposition of duties upon the colonies due to the economic ideas of the times. If Great Britain forbade the colonists to export wool, it made its own subjects liable to capital punishment for exporting wool. John Hancock was the prince of smugglers and was set down for trial at the time of our Revolution. Alexander Hamilton was cognizant of contraband trade by the firm which he formed during his minority. Men like these resisted the government, because they felt that every blow that they struck was a blow for liberty. Mr. Wells then sketched the work of Turgot in France in connection with economic matters. Voltaire and other of Turgot’s contemporaries, he said, supported Turgot in his schemes of economic reforms and foresaw the revolution and the reign of terror which followed after Turgot’s downfall. But afterward there came a compensation in the appearance of Smith’s great work. He then quoted the high praise awarded it by Buckle, Mackintosh and others and said: “The work then done was the greatest ever attempted since the days of Christ and his apostles. Under the light of the teachings of Adam Smith, the golden rule of ‘Do unto others as you would that they should do unto you’ was embodied in the practical affairs of life. People are benefited and never injured by the prosperity of their neighbors; this was the great truth expounded by Adam Smith. There is no class of men that submit quicker to the spirit of the times than the mercantile class, and the spirit of the times always is the aggregation of knowledge. From this point of view and in the light of the work done by Adam Smith, though the world has not recognized the source from which it came, it will be seen that the great Scotchman has fully merited the eulogiums passed upon him. He has done more than all the sleeping[?] statesmen[?] combined have ever attempted[?] to do.” [Three words unclearly printed marked with [?]]

SPEECH OF WILLIAM CULLEN BRYANT.

The third toast was:

“The Illustrious Teachers of Political Economy” — Say, Ricardo, Malthus, Senior, the Mills, Bastiat, Cairnes, Rossi, Chevalier and Walker, who form a galaxy of bright and shining stars whose places in the heavens will grow brighter with the lapse of time.

In reply William Cullen Bryant spoke as follows:

                  “Mr. President and Gentlemen: Allow me to congratulate you on the occasion which has brought you together. I am glad to see such men assembled for such a purpose — that of commemorating the publication of the great work which first clearly demonstrated to mankind the benefits of a free exchange of commodities between the nations of the world, and the mischiefs of that tyranny which seeks to check this free exchange by the strong arm of the law. The doctrine of free trade, placed on the impregnable basis of fact and reasoning, was twin born with this republic of ours, and I can only wish the republic a like perpetuity with the doctrines.

                  “It is now four years since a concurrence of circumstances, to which I will do no more than allude, had the effect of causing a movement in favor of free trade, which was then in considerable activity and apparently not without effect on the public mind to stagnate and almost to sleep. And what years, my friends, were these: Years of languishing enterprise, years of despairing industry, years of strikes, years of contention between the employers and the employed, years which showed the spectacle of laborers by hundreds looking in vain for occupation, and hunger-pinched families shivering in their unwarmed garrets. All this while the protective system, as it is called, has been in full force. Everything is protected — that is to say, everything imported into the country is taxed as it never was taxed before. If the protective system be the ground of commercial prosperity the country should now be prosperous beyond all its previous experience; our mills, now silent, should be in their fullest activity; our laborers should be in constant employment; not a willing arm should be idle, not a spindle should cease to hum.

                  “Is It not time for a reaction? Are we to go on in this manner indefinitely? We have tried the protective system as fully as is possible; we have tasted its fruits, and they are bitter. Let us now have a season of free exchange I have no doubt, for my own part, that a liberal system of revenue laws, especially combined with a return to specie payments, would make an instantaneous and most fortunate change in the condition of the country. Hundreds of commodities, the raw material of as many forms of industry, would be released from the taxation which now puts them beyond the reach of as many classes of artisans, and new life would be at once communicated to the arts both useful and ornamental. The old handicraft of shipbuilding, which made our barks the wonder of the world for speed and economy of management, would be revived. The very day that such a change in our present unhappy policy received the sanction of the Executive would see the gloom of the times dispelled as suddenly as a bright morning follows a storm, and there is no power able under these circumstances to hold back our people from plunging into enterprises which they now shrink from in despair.

                  “Yes, my friends, the time for a reaction has arrived, and we are determined that it shall have a fair field. Free trade has slept while its enemies have been performing their unhappy experiments upon the public welfare, and now we look to see it rise invigorated by its long slumber. Let me say here that I am in favor of protection, but protection of a kind very different from that which for many years past has dealt so cruelly with the interests of the country. I am for protecting the consumers — the class whose numbers are counted by millions — I am for protecting this class in its natural and proper right to exchange what it produces in whatever market it can exchange them to most advantage. I am for rescuing it from the hands into which it has fallen, and which plunder it with as little remorse as the rovers of the Barbary States in the early part of this century pillaged the merchant ships that entered into their seas.

                  “Depend upon it, my friends, this is a righteous contest on our part, and a blessing will rest upon it. I have been long a soldier in this war, and have never grown weary of it. I may I not see the day of triumph, but many of you will. The torch which I have borne for more than fifty years I shall pass to abler, doubtless, though not more faithful hands, assured that it will yet shed it rays on a glorious victory.”

SPEECH OF EDWARD ATKINSON.

The following was the fourth toast:

“Commercial freedom, or the unfettered intercourse of nations” — A glorious principle that has taken its place by the side of the freedom of the press, the freedom of speech and the freedom of assemblage, and which, like them, has demonstrated its claims to our regard by the blessings which have everywhere accompanied and followed its practical applications.

Edward Atkinson replied to this and said the charter of the Pennsylvania Railroad forbade it to build locomotives, although it allowed it to repair them, for fear of interfering with the interests of the factories. This prohibition is, however, got over by the company considering the brass label on the locomotives to be the locomotives themselves. He then said:

                  “The nation was now struggling against evils within which once it struggled against from without. The two great questions of the hour were evils of bad money and bad taxation. This nation might soon hope for freedom from the first, and ere long from the second. The advocates of protection now admitted that free trade was something to be desired, but claimed It was impracticable and artificial. Freetraders believed it natural. Differences now between the two parties were only regarding time and method. The question now arose, could the freetraders unite with protectionists in some compromise that would not demand a sacrifice of principle. He thought they could. The protectionists no longer based their legislation and claims upon the principles of protection, but upon principles of general utility. No one now demanded on principle more than a moderate taxation for the expenses of government, and he thought that very soon the statesmen might take the place of economists. The nation was stronger than its leaders, and order would soon come out of chaos. The admirable advantages of England should be considered; and if the advocates of free trade would only act with moderation and caution, they could soon obtain their end, practically at least.”

                  Remarks were also made by Brinton Coxe, of Philadelphia, who spoke of the progress which the principles of Adam Smith were making in Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, that Middle Age castle of Protection.

SPEECH OF PROFESSOR SUMNER.

The next toast was:

“International freedom” — The liberty of trade and intercourse which, within the domain of the United States, prevails over so many thousand square leagues of territory, which has been so fruitful a source of prosperity, union peace and rapid development needs but to be applied to our foreign relations to establish our rightful position among the nations in wealth, in power, in influence and in the happiness of the people.

                  Professor W. G. Summer responded, saying that old dogmas were disappearing, utopian hopes are vanishing and positive methods are replacing them. Political economy is capable of positive and beneficial resalts. Among us economic problems are practical questions, and we are forced to turn our attention from science to the practical benefits of its old and familiar consequences to our country. This ought to be the work of politicians and statesmen, that the largest amount of human happiness may be directly produced therefrom.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

The last toast given was:

“The Science of Political Economy” — It demonstrates morals. It proves that diligence, economy, prudence, truth and justice are not only among the canons of the moral law, but are also the means of a sound and stable public prosperity.

This was ably responded to by Professor Anderson. [see following item]

______________________________

Democrat and Chronicle (Rochester, NY: December 15, 1876), p. 4.

Dr. [Martin Brewer] Anderson
on Free Trade

Our report of the free-trade dinner at Demonico’s last evening requires to be supplemented by an outline of the interesting and effective remarks of President Anderson, of Rochester (N.Y.) university. He considered free trade in its moral aspects, and said that he regarded free exchange as one of the fundamental principles underlying human society, the same as the freedom of opinion and of labor. Free trade is as worthy and important an object of human endeavor as the doctrines of the declaration of independence. No bargain is either good or safe which does not confer a benefit upon both the seller and buyer, and the moral element in trade must be taken into account to secure permanent prosperity. He eulogized the abstract thinkers of the world and eloquently set forth the benefits conferred upon mankind by Adam Smith in the field of trade, Jeremy Bentham in the field of criminal law, and also cited other examples. He spoke of his own labors as a teacher of political economy, and said that during the last fifteen years he had permitted no young man to leave the institution of which he had charge who did not possess a clear notion of the fundamental doctrines of free trade. He then made the practical suggestion that an efficient free-trade club ought to be organized in this city for the purpose of free discussion. He said that economic truth propagates itself under proper conditions, and he would have the free-trade work of the colleges supplemented by systematic organization, so that young men may be preserved in economic faith and so that the influence of free-traders of all classes may be made effective.

Image Source: Adam Smith, 1723-1790. Political economist by James Tassie (1787). National Galleries of Scotland, Scottish National Portrait Gallery.

Categories
Economists Harvard LGBTQ Money and Banking Policy

Harvard. A. Piatt Andrew at his home “Red Roof”. Gloucester, MA. 1910

Abram Piatt Andrew taught monetary economics at Harvard before becoming a key player in the National Monetary Commission, Director  of the U.S. Mint, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, founder of the American Field Service, and a Republican member of the United States Congress from 1921-36. Much more has been posted about him here at Economics in the Rear-View Mirror.

This post deals with his home and private life.

__________________________

This photograph features A. Piatt Andrew at his home in Gloucester, Massachusetts, before World War I began. Prior to founding the American Field Service during the war, Andrew served as an assistant professor of economics at Harvard, director of the U.S. Mint, and assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. “Red Roof,” as his home was called, was designed and built under Andrew’s direction in 1902. Red Roof contained secret rooms, one of which necessitated dismantling a sofa to access and contained a Prohibition-era wet bar and a player piano. Guests in the living room could therefore hear the music but didn’t know its source. Another secret room contained a dugout that was later filled with AFS artifacts from the war, including posters, AFS recruitment slides, shell fuses (a favorite souvenir of AFS Drivers), and trench art.

Andrew created elaborate entertainment for guests at Red Roof by organizing themed dinner parties, musical performances, and skits in full costume. Guests to Red Roof included interior decorator and longtime AFS supporter Henry Sleeper, the portrait painter John Singer Sargent, art collector and philanthropist Isabella Stewart Gardner, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt [May 2-4, 1903].

Source: Nicole Milano, “A. Piatt Andrew and Red Roof, 1910.” American Field Service Website.

__________________________

But wait, there’s more

A blog dealing exclusively (no kidding) with “A. Piatt Andrew and Red Roof“.

__________________________

Research tips:

At the Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities (now called “Historic New England“) one can find “A. Piatt Andrew Guest Books, 1902-1930” among other items. These guest book pages have, in addition to the signatures, close to 700 photographs.  You can page through the pictures online (1902-1912) and (1913-1930).

At the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum you will find online 249 items (photographs, correspondence from A. Piatt Andrew).

__________________________

Henry Davis Sleeper and
A. Piatt Andrew Jr.

Plot spoiler: They were more than friendly neighbours.

Source: A. Piatt Andrew’s The Red Roof Guestbook, 1914-1930. Available at the Historic New England Website.

 Sleeper’s frail constitution prevented him from participating in the rough-and-tumble games and amusements favored by Andrew and his young male friends, mostly Harvard undergraduates. [p. 90]

Mrs. Jack

Isabella Stewart Gardner (1840-1924) was a legend in her own time. Starting with the untimely death of her husband, John Lowell Gardner, in 1898, his widow, called Mrs. Jack, embarked on an ambitious program of art acquisition which culminated in the transformation of her fabulous Venetian-style palazzo, Fenway Court, into a beloved cultural institution. She accomplished this feat largely by relying on the skills, expertise and companionship of the coterie of attractive and talented homosexual men-mostly artists, collectors, and curators-that she gathered around her…. [p. 90]

Society Painter

By 1908 Mrs. Jack’s circle included the society painter John Singer Sargent (1856-1925). Born in Italy to American parents, Sargent had first come to Boston in 1887. After a solo exhibition in 1888 at the St. Botolph Club, he was commissioned in 1890 to design murals for the new Boston Public Library in Copley Square. Along with other commissions-for the Museum of Fine Arts and Harvard’s Widener Library-Sargent was almost fully occupied in Boston for the next twenty-five years. While circumspect about his private life, an album of male nudes that Sargent, a bachelor, kept for his own enjoyment offers insight into his predilections. [p. 91]

Seaside shenanigans

In the years preceding World War I, Isabella Stewart Gardner, John Singer Sargent, and others in their circle were drawn into the wealthy summer enclave at Eastern Point, Gloucester, where Harvard professor (later U.S. congressman) A. Piatt Andrew Jr. (1873-1936) and his neighbor, interior designer Henry Davis Sleeper (1878-1934), had homes. The letters from Sleeper to Andrew provide evidence of the intensity of his feelings.

Social life on Eastern Point revolved around ceaseless entertaining. One of Gardner’s biographers hints at the goings-on at Andrew’s home, Red Roof: “Gossip had it that often all the guests were men, their pastimes peculiar. Yet all the ladies on Eastern Point were fascinated by Piatt.” Portrait painter Cecilia Beaux (1863-1942) spent summers at her Gloucester home, Green Alley, where she enjoyed hosting evening gatherings of her neighbors. She never married. “Faithful in attendance were Harry Sleeper and Piatt Andrew, whose brilliancy of repartee has never been excelled” according to an observer. Concealment and ambiguity characterized the lives of many of the women and men who moved through this exclusive world of polite manners and material luxury. [p. 92]

Source: The History Project. Improper Bostonians: Lesbian and gay history from the Puritans to Playland. Boston: Beacon Press, 1998. [Note: you need to register at archive.org to access (borrow) the book for an hour at a time]

__________________________

October 6, 1910. A. Piatt Andrew and Isabella Stewart Gardner at “Red Roof”. Photo by Thomas E. Marr from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum. Cleaned and cropped by Economics in the Rear View Mirror

From Isabella Stewart Gardner’s biography

A. Piatt Andrew lived next door to Miss Davidge under his “Red Roof” – nearer the mainland than Miss Davidge and Miss Beaux, and with one more maiden lady beyond him….

Harry Sleeper, whom Mrs. Gardner already knew fairly well, lived just beyond. … Harry was sweet, gentle, affectionate. He was devoted to his mother, who protected him from the ladies when he feared they had designs on his celibacy. Still more was he the devoted slave to Piatt….

…A. Piatt Andrew had an organ installed in the passage between the living room and a recently added study. Here, Isabella sat on the couch (with a bearskin and two leopard skins on it) to listen to his music. She was probably unaware of a hidden space above the books – too low to stand up in but equipped with mattress and covers where some of Andrew’s guests could listen in still greater comfort. She had seen the Brittany bed in the living room but that there was a small hole over it, perhaps no one had told her. The sound of organ music could be heard the better through the hole – and was it just a coincidence that a person in the hidden alcove above could look down through it? Gossip had it that often all the guests were men, their pastimes peculiar. Yet all the ladies on Eastern Point were fascinated by Piatt and one especially keen observer thought that Miss Beaux was “sweet on him”.

When the fog lifted and the sun came out, the whole atmosphere at Red Roof changed. Gloucester harbor sparkled bright and blue. Isabella’s spirits lifted, macabre impressions vanished, and Isabella went out on a stone seat to be photographed with Piatt – or “A,” as she liked to call him, referring to herself as “Y,” amused to find herself at the opposite end of the alphabet.

Isabella wore a linen suit with leg o’mutton sleeves, long coat and wide gored skirt. She had on a toque with a black dotted veil over her face. Beside her, A. Piatt sat – head turned toward her, his handsome profile toward the camera.

A. Piatt Andrew had been chosen by President Eliot to work in Senator Aldrich’s monetary commission and he planned to go to Europe during the summer of 1908 to make preliminary studies. Mrs. Gardner told him to be sure to get in touch with Matthew Stewart Prichard – late of the Boston Art Museum. This Andrew did, Prichard showing him beautiful Greek and Roman coins which gave him ideas for new designs for American currency.

Source: Louise Hall Tharp, Mrs. Jack: A Biography of Isabella Stewart Gardner, Little, Brown and Company, 1965, pp. 276-278.

Categories
Chicago Policy Suggested Reading

Chicago. Governmental Price Fixing Reading List. Friedman, 1972

President Richard Nixon’s peacetime wage and price controls were less than a year old when Milton Friedman used the teachable moment to discuss “governmental price fixing” in a course of his at the University of Chicago.

______________________________

Spring, 1972

Economics 496
Selected Topics in Contemporary Economic Problems
Dr. M. Friedman

Reading List

General Note: The special topic that will be considered this semester is governmental price fixing. We shall examine three general categories of price fixing: fixing of prices of specific commodities or services; general price and wage controls; fixing of exchange rates. The basic theoretical tools required to analyze these problems have presumably been studied in courses in price theory, monetary theory, and income and employment theory but will be reviewed in class lectures. This reading list therefore covers mostly applied material.

I. Fixing of Specific Prices

HD1761
H6

Houthakker, Hendrik, Economics Policy for the Farm Sector, American Enterprise Institute, 1967

HD1761
P13

Paarlberg, Don, American Farm Policy, Wiley, 1964

HB171.5
A34
1967

Alchian, A. & Allen, W., University Economics, pp. 92-99, 402-404

HD4918
P47

Peterson, J. M. & Stewart, C T. Employment Effects of Minimum Wage Rate, American Enterprise Institute, 1969

HD4918
F74

Friedman, M. & Brozen, Y. The Minimum Wage Rate, Who Really Pays?

HC106.5
B83

Burns Arthur F., The Management of Prosperity, pp. 45-48

 

II. General Wage and Price Controls

Campbell, Colin (ed.), Wage Price Controls in World War Il, U.S. and Germany, American Enterprise Institute

HB
B24
H1

Ullman, I. & Flanagan, R. J. Wage-Restraints: Study of Incomes Policies in Western Europe, University of California Press, 1971

HC106.5
S435

Shultz, G. P. & Aliber, R. Z. (eds.), Guidelines, Informal Controls, and the Market Place, University of Chicago Press

HB236
A3
G3

Galbraith, J. K., A Theory of Price Control. Harvard University Press, Cambridge 1952

HB236
U5H35

Hardy, C. O., Wartime Control of Prices, Washington, Brookings Institute, 1940
Wallis, W. A., How to Ration Consumers’ Goods and Control Their Prices, American Economic Review, Sept. 1942, pp. 501-512
Gorter, W. & Hildebrand, G. H., “Is Price Control Really Necessary?”  American Economic Review, March 1951, pp. 77-81

III. Control of Exchange Rates

HG3883
U7 F7

Friedman, M. & Roosa, R. L., The Balance of Payments: Free vs. Fixed Exchange Rates

HB33
F7

Friedman, M., “The Case for Flexible Exchange Rates,” Essays in Positive Economics, University of Chicago Press

HG538
F856

Friedman, M., Dollars and Deficits

HG3821
A66

Halm, G. (ed.), Approaches to Greater Flexibility of Exchange Rates, Princeton University Press, 1970

Source: Hoover Institution Archives. Milton Friedman Papers. Box 78, Folder 5 “University of Chicago, Econ. 496”.

Image Source:  Milton Friedman (undated) from University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-06231, Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.

Categories
Bibliography Harvard Policy Suggested Reading

Harvard. Short Bibliography of Social Insurance for “Serious-minded Students”, Foerster, 1910

 

In 1910 Harvard published 43 short bibliographies covering “Social Ethics and Allied Subjects”, about half of which were dedicated to particular topics in economics and economic sociology. The project was coordinated by Plummer Professor of Christian Morals, Francis G. Peabody.

Social Insurance  is one such “allied subject” covered in the bibliography provided by Dr. Robert Franz Foerster, instructor in social ethics who had recently been awarded his Harvard economics Ph.D., and transcribed below along with links to digital copies of the items found at archive.org, hathitrust.org, as well as at other on-line archives.

Previously posted bibliographies from “Social Ethics and Allied Subjects”:

Economic Theory by Professor Frank Taussig

Taxation by Professor Charles J. Bullock

Trade Unionism by Professor William Z. Ripley

_____________________________

From the Prefatory Note:

The present list represents an attempt to make this connection between the teaching of the University and a need of the modern world. Each compiler has had in mind, not a superficial reader, nor yet a learned scholar, but an intelligent and serious-minded student, who is willing to read substantial literature if it be commended to him as worth his while and is neither too voluminous nor too inaccessible. To such an inquirer each editor makes suggestions concerning the contents, spirit or doctrine of a book, not attempting a complete description or a final judgment, but as though answering the preliminary question of a student, “What kind of book is this?” The plan thus depends for its usefulness on the competency of the editors concerned, and each editor assumes responsibility for the section to which his name is prefixed.

Source: Prefatory Note by Francis G. Peabody. A Guide to Reading in Social Ethics and Allied Subjects, Lists of Books and Articles Selected and Described for the Use of General Readers. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1910, p. vi.

_____________________________

IV.13. SOCIAL INSURANCE
ROBERT F. FOERSTER

[Note: items in square brackets have been added
by the curator of Economics in the Rear-view Mirror]

In this section are comprised works upon those measures, usually public but not always technically insurance, which aim to protect the working classes from the economic consequences of sickness, accident, invalidity and old age. Ways of meeting the problem of unemployment, though in part logically finding a place here, are for special reasons treated in a separate section. The importance, in this connection, of such titles described under Thrift Institutions as Henderson’s “Industrial insurance in the United States” and the report by the United States Commissioner of Labor on “Workmen’s insurance and benefit funds in the United States” is obvious.

 

I. GENERAL

United States Library of Congress. Select list of references on workingmen’s insurance. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1908, pp. 28.

A helpful compilation.

 

Zacher, Georg, editor. Die Arbeiterversicherung im Auslande. Berlin: A. Troschel, 1898 –.

This, the most valuable work of reference on social insurance, is a collection of historical and descriptive monographs for all important countries, except Germany, published at intervals since 1898. Each volume discusses the results of laws, contains a special bibliography, and prints the texts of laws both in the original language and in German. As significant changes have occurred, supplementary volumes have been added.

[Erster Band (1900). Heft 1-12: Dänemark, Schweden, Norwegen, Frankreich, England, Italien, Oesterreich, Ungarn, Russland, Finland, Schweiz, Belgien.]

[Heft XVII. Charles Richmond Henderson, Die Arbeiterversicherung in den Vereinigten Staaten von Nord-Amerika (1907)]

 

Bellom, Maurice. Les lois d’assurance ouvrière à l’étranger. 10 vols. Paris: Arthur Rousseau, 1892-1909.

A compilation second in importance only to Zacher, but different in procedure and omitting France. Like Zacher, it supplies historical and descriptive matter and texts, but instead of treating each country independently, it discusses, in one volume, sickness insurance; in six, accident insurance; in two, invalidity and old-age insurance; and in a supplementary volume, published four years after its predecessor, describes recent changes and additions.

[I. Assurance contre maladie (1892)]

[II. Assurance contre les accidents: 1ème parti (1895); 2ème partie (1896); 3ème partie (1900); 4ème partie (1901); 5ème partie (1903)]

[III. Assurance contre l’invalidité, 1ère partie (1905)]

 

Congrès Internationaux [des Accidents du Travail et] des Assurances Sociales. Publications. Paris: 1890.

The international congress has usually been held triennially, since 1889, and its proceedings, including many important papers, have been published in French and German.

[Paris (1889) Volume I; Volume II; Berne (1891); Milan (1894) Volume I, Volume II; Bruxelles (1897); Paris (1900), Volume I; Düsseldorf (1902); Vienne (1905), Volume I, Volume II; Rome (1908); Washington (1915)]

The quarterly Bulletin of the Congress, published by the Comité Permanent (Paris: Arthur Rousseau), is the best current source of information on all branches of social insurance. It includes texts of bills and laws, and able discussions.

 

Willoughby, William Franklin. Workingmen’s insurance. New York: T. Y. Crowell & Co., 1898, pp. xii, 386.

This volume, dealing mainly with European plans, can still, despite the great extension of insurance since its appearance, reliably be used for an understanding of the earlier developments.

 

United States. Fourth Special Report of the Commissioner of Labor. Compulsory insurance in Germany. Prepared by John Graham Brooks. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1893, pp. 370. [Revised Edition, 1895]

Although important amendments have been enacted and fresh experience gained since this volume was written, it is still one of the most useful accounts in English of the origin, nature and problems of social insurance in Germany.

 

Lass, Ludwig, and Zahn, Friedrich. Einrichtung und Wirkung der deutschen Arbeiterversicherung. Dritte Ausgabe. Berlin: A. Asher, 1904, ix, 274 S.

Probably the best non-technical exposition of the nature, operation and effects of the German insurance plan. Though the work is semi-official, and its tone laudatory and defensive, the arguments are skillfully chosen, well put and persuasive.

 

Pinkus, N. Workmen’s insurance in Germany. Yale Review, February, 1904, pp. 372-389; May, 1904, pp. 72-97; November, 1904, pp. 296-323; February, 1905, pp. 418-434.

Discusses the principles and effects of German insurance.

 

Farnam, Henry W. The psychology of German workmen’s insurance. Yale Review, May, 1904, pp. 98-113; February, 1905, pp. 435-438.

Argues that insurance has not made the workman better disposed to state or employer and has reduced his self-reliance.

 

Taussig, F. W. Workmen’s insurance in Germany: some illustrative figures. Quarterly Journal of Economics, November, 1909, pp. 191-194.

Measures the employers’ burden.

 

Seager, Henry Rogers. Social insurance: A program of social reform. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1910, pp. v, 175.

An attractive statement, in simple terms, of the principles of social insurance, with special reference to American needs.

 

Lewis, Frank. State insurance. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin Company, 1909, pp. 233.

An argument for compulsory insurance; good in its exposition of the German plan, questionable in its economic logic.

 

Kennedy, James B. Beneficiary features of American trade unions. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1908, pp. 128.

A concise study, based on original sources. Only national and international unions are considered.

 

Weyl, Walter E. Benefit features of British trade unions. United States Bureau of Labor, Bulletin No. 64, May, 1906, pp. 699-848.

A history and description, with statistical results.

 

II. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS AND DISEASE

Hoffman, Frederick L. Industrial accidents. United States Bureau of Labor, Bulletin No. 78, September, 1908, pp. 417-465.

Discusses the frequency of accidents in the more dangerous occupations.

 

Oliver, Thomas, editor. Dangerous trades. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1902, pp. xxiii, 891.

Probably the best available volume in its field. The sixty chapters deal more generally with disease than accidents. Of a more popular character is the author’s later volume on “Diseases of occupations” (London: Methuen & Co., 1908, pp. vi, 427).

 

Andrews, John B. Phosphorus poisoning in the match industry of the United States. United States Bureau of Labor, Bulletin No. 86, January, 1910, pp. 31-146.

 

Sommerfeld, Th., and others. List of industrial poisons. United States Bureau of Labor, Bulletin No. 86, January, 1910, pp. 147-168.

Two good additions to the literature on industrial disease.

 

Foreign Workmen’s Compensation Acts, Summary of. United States Bureau of Labor, Bulletin No. 74, January, 1908, pp. 121-143.

A compendious, classified statement of the enactments of twenty-two countries, convenient at once for a rapid view of the legislation of one country and for international comparison.

 

McKitrick, Reuben. Accident insurance for workingmen (Comparative Legislation Bulletin No. 20). Madison: Wisconsin Library Commission, 1909, pp. 70.

The legal and financial principles of various forms of accident insurance clearly explained.

 

Aronson, V. R. The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1906. London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1909, pp. 559.

“The object of this book is to present a complete view of the law of workmen’s compensation as contained in the Act of 1906, and in the decisions of the English and Scotch courts both prior and subsequent to that act” (preface, page 5). In this aim the book admirably succeeds; it is thorough, clear and, in its comparisons with the older acts, highly instructive.

 

Parker, Launcelot. The British Workmen’s Compensation Acts. United States Bureau of Labor, Bulletin No. 70, May, 1907, pp. 579-638.

A history of previous acts and an exposition, with the text, of the Act of 1906.

 

Clark, Lindley D. The legal liability of employers for injuries to their employees in the United States. United States Bureau of Labor, Bulletin No. 74, January, 1908, pp. 1-120.

An excellent statement of the American law.

 

Eastman, Crystal. Work-accidents and the law. (The Pittsburgh Survey.) New York: Charities Publication Committee, pp. xvi, 345.

An important study, by the secretary of the New York State Employers’ Liability Commission, of the causes of industrial accident in the Pittsburgh district, the operation of present liability laws, and the best method of reform. There are interesting appendices.

 

New York. Commission on employers’ liability. First report, March 19, 1910. Albany, 1910, pp. v, 271.

An able preliminary discussion of present difficulties and of remedies.

 

Wisconsin. Bureau of Labor and Industrial Statistics. Thirteenth biennial report. Part I: Industrial accidents and employer’s liability in Wisconsin. Madison, 1909, pp. 1-143. Fourteenth biennial report. Part II: Industrial accidents in Wisconsin. Madison, 1909, pp. 69-142.

These reports discuss conditions in Wisconsin, and foreign and American remedies, tried and proposed.

 

The State Coöperative Accident Insurance Fund of Maryland. United States Bureau of Labor, Bulletin No. 57, March, 1905, pp. 645-648.

History of an ill-conceived and ephemeral, but not uninstructive, American plan of state insurance. The text of the law appeared in Bulletin No. 45, pp. 406-408; the grounds of its unconstitutionality are set forth in Bulletin No. 57, pp. 689, 690.

 

III. INVALIDITY AND OLD AGE

Massachusetts. Report of the Commission on Old Age Pensions, Annuities and Insurance. Boston, 1910, pp. 409.

A comprehensive survey of existing systems, public and private, national and local. Issues are discussed with special reference to an American community; and a conclusion adverse to the institution of a state scheme for Massachusetts is reached.

 

Brandeis, Louis D. Massachusetts savings-bank insurance and pension system. Quarterly Publications of the American Statistical Association, March, 1909, pp. 409-416.

A brief exposition of an interesting voluntary scheme.

 

Sutherland, William. Old age pensions. London: Methuen & Co., 1907, pp. x, 227.

A concise critical description of the various plans proposed in England before the act of 1908, and a thoughtful discussion of the factors of the pension problem. In an appendix are reviewed the chief foreign systems. The book serves incidentally as a guide to the important Parliamentary papers on the subject.

 

Old Age Pensions: A collection of short papers. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1903, pp. 247.

Many of the articles are of general significance and are written by eminent students.

 

Source: Teachers in Harvard University, A Guide to Reading in Social Ethics and Allied Subjects, Lists of Books and Articles Selected and Described for the Use of General Readers. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1910, pp. 203-209.

Image Source: Assistant Professor of Social Ethics, Robert Franz Foerster in Harvard Album 1920.

Categories
Economists Harvard Policy

Harvard. Paul Volcker’s A.M. Transcript for Graduate School of Public Administration, 1949-1951

 

Paul Volcker’s entry into Economics in the Rear-view Mirror was celebrated as the 45th member of the tongue-in-cheek page “Economists Wearing Bowties”.  

But seriously now, Paul Volcker’s biographer, William L. Silver (Volcker The Triumph of Persistence, New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2012), included an image of a hand-written copy of Paul Volcker’s Harvard University A.M. course transcript that I  have transcribed into a digital artifact for this post. Two Volcker quotes from the book have been added to show the power of academic scribblers from a few years back (and not necessarily in a good way) to provoke frenzy in the minds of those in authority. 

Incidentally, for a couple of the courses Economics in the Rear-view Mirror already provides copies of the course outlines, reading lists, and final exams (see below for links).

________________________

Too late for a tuition refund
(from Princeton)

“I don’t think I heard the name of John Maynard Keynes until I got to Harvard. At Princeton they taught the famous quantity theory of money as though they heard it directly from David Hume in 1750….Friedrich Lutz was about forty at the time, but from the perspective of an eighteen-year-old, he might as well have been two hundred and forty. He taught us that too much money created inflation.”

Source: William L. Silber, Volcker The Triumph of Persistence, New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2012, pp. 33-34.

________________________

But what if your detector is defective?

“Every man should have a built-in automatic crap detector operating inside him. It also should have a manual drill and a crank handle in case the machine breaks down.”

Ernest Hemingway 1954

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Volcker recalling Roosa’s arranging a presidential appointment for him as deputy undersecretary of the treasury for monetary affairs so that he could serve as Treasury’s point man in confronting the [Kennedy Administration’s] CEA:

“It all sounded too easy. Push this button twice and out pops full employment. Equations do not work as well on people as they do on rocket. I remember sitting in class at Harvard listening to [the fiscal policy expert] Arthur Smithies say, ‘A little inflation is good for the economy.’ And all I can remember after that was a word flashing in my brain like a yellow caution sign: ‘Bullshit.’ I’m not sure exactly where that came from…but it’s a thought that never left me.”

Source: “William L. Silber, Volcker The Triumph of Persistence, New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2012, pp. 33-34.

________________________

Handwritten copy of Volcker’s
Harvard transcript:

Harvard University. Graduate School of Public Administration
Littauer Center, Cambridge, Mass.

July 26, 1951.

Transcript of Harvard Record of Paul Adolph Volcker

Course

Grade
½ Course

Full Course

1949-50

Ec. 201

Economic Theory A
Ec. 241 Principles of Money and Banking

A-

Ec. 243a

International Trade A

Gov. 250a

Govt. Admin. & Public Policy

A

Ec. 243b

International Trade A

Gov. 250b

Govt. Admin. & Public Policy A-
1950-51

Gov. 106b

History of Political Thought A
Ec 202 Advanced Economic Theory

Excused

Ec. 251

Public Finance A
Ec. 350 Reading & Research/half
Prof. Hansen

Satisfactory

Gov. 300

Reading & Research/half
Prof. Fainsod
Satisfactory

 

Gov. 300 Reading & Research/half
Prof. Neumanns

Satisfactory

Degree awarded: A.M., Harvard Univ., June 1951

The established grades are A, B, C, D, and E.

A grade of A, B, Credit, Satisfactory or Excused indicates that the course was passed with distinction. Only courses passed with distinction may be credited toward a higher degree.

Robert G. McCloskey
Secretary

Source: Image from William L. Silber, Volcker — The Triumph of Persistence, New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2012, p. 308.

________________________

Volcker’s Harvard Course Instructors

1949-50

Ec 201. Economic Theory. Professor Chamberlin.

Ec 241. Principles of Money and Banking. Professor J. H. Williams (Fall); Professor Hansen (Spring).

Ec 243a. International Trade. Professor Haberler.

Ec 243b. International Economic Policy. Professors Haberler and Smithies.

Gov 250a. Government Administration and Policy. Professor Fainsod.

Gov 250b. Government Administration and Policy.  Professor Gaus.

1950-51

Ec 251. Public Finance. Professor Burbank.

Gov 106b. History of Political Thought II. Probably Prof. Friedrichs.

Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1949-1950. [Note: course enrollment information was not provided in the President’s Report for 1950-51.]

 

Image Source: 2020 Princeton Reunions Virtual Talk: Honoring the Remarkable Legacy of Paul Volcker ’49.