Tag: Lerner

Categories
Economists

Keynes vs. Marx. Abba Lerner responds to Daniel Bell, 1944

 

 

 

Both the economist Abba Lerner and the sociologist Daniel Bell can be seen in this 1944 exchange of letters to have considered themselves still at that time, to differing degrees of orthodoxy, of the Marxian persuasion. What caught my eye, in light of current macroeconomics debates, was Bell’s identification of “the confidence fairy” in Keynesian economics. Lerner’s response is that human psychology is something that Keynes rightly identified has a place in macroeconomic models. Lerner’s key conclusion: “If the theory of how the individual parts behave does not fit in with the theory of how the totality behaves that is evidence that at least one of the theories is wrong.”

In August 1938 Abba Lerner drove from Colorado Springs to Mexico City to meet Leon Trotsky. Lerner’s description of that encounter was transcribed earlier in Economics in the Rear-View Mirror.

_____________________

Letter from Daniel Bell to Abba Lerner
[presumably July or August, 1944]

49 East Ninth Street
New York 3, N.Y.

Dear Abba:

I was reading through Joan Robinson’s Introduction to the Theory of Employment, recently to check some thoughts on Keynesian economics and one point has stuck in my mind nagging me on. So I pass it along to you in the hope of clarification.

In the emphasis that the whole Keynesian school places on the role of demand, savings and investment, it seems that the cornerstone of the structure is actually a psychological explanation of depression and unemployment. For the theory seems to hinge on the decisions of entrepreneurs to invest based on a calculation of profit. On the one hand people save, so there is a decline in demand for consumption goods on the other business concerns fear to expand because of declining demand for capital goods by consumption goods industries. The use of word[s] such as fears, calculation etc are quite irritating. A Marxian theory, largely abstract and dealing in terms of ratios of constant and variable capital and declining rate of profit, seems more satisfying because of the total and more meaningful picture of a complete situation it provides.

Anyway, I’m interested in clearing up this issue of a psychological underpinning to Keynesian economics. If so, why all we need is a good publicity firm to convince the people to cheer up and spend and our worries are solved.

Apart from the frivolity, I’d appreciate your reactions.

sincerely,

[signed]

Dan Bell

_____________________

210 W 16, NY 11, NY
August 6th 1944

Dear Dan,

You write that you are irritated by the emphasis on psychology in the Keynesian theory of employment. The use of words like fears, calculations etc annoy you and you find that in this regard the Keynesian approach is less satisfactory than the Marxian which [is]“largely abstract and dealing in terms of the ratios of constant and variable capital and declining rate of profit, seems to be more satisfying because of the total and more meaningful picture of a complete situation it provides.”

So you [are] interested in clearing up the issue of a psychological underpinning to Keynesian economics. “If so,” you write, “why all we need is a good publicity firm to convince the people to cheer up and spend and our worries are solved.”

I react quite the other way. I can see no objection to psychology nor does it seem to me to be an illegitimate underpinning to a theory to have psychological elements. On the contrary any theory that purports to explain what happens to human society without having to pay any attention to the way the people in it behave would seem to [me] prima-facie a swindle. It is of course very pretty and aesthetic to have a plan that describes the working of any economy as if it had nothing to do with the way human being[s] behave — which is psychology — but appears to deduce it from a simple manipulation of mathematical ratios. The Marxian theory does this and to that extent it is false and the detailed analysis of the falsity of the argument has been abundantly demonstrated even in cases where the conclusions happen to be true.

The same tendency to accept a simple mathematical law without going behind it to see how it fits in with the fact that what we are describing is the total behavior of millions of people is quite common in economic and probably in other studies too. One that is very similar to the Marxian preoccupation with ratios is to be found in the proposition called “the acceleration principle” out of which economists have built theories of the business cycle, more complex and aesthetically more satisfying than the Marxian theory, but which have been discarded as soon as it was pointed out the apparently simple mathematical proposition concerning the effects of changes in the ratios of current consumption to replacement were only true because of an implicit assumption about the expectations of business men about the continuation of the current level or trend of consumption. I refer to the theories of the Business cycle by Harrod.

Of course it will not do to dismiss the Keynesian theory by saying that all we need is to persuade people to spend by appropriate advertising. Functional Finance is only an application of other means, which are much more powerful than advertising, to bring about the proper level of spending. As long as we have an economy, capitalist or socialist, in which what is produced is somehow related to the public’s money demand for the output, we can regulate the level of activity by working on the demand.

There are very strict limits as to what can be done in this direction by advertising or propaganda or ballyhoo. Individual citizens might perhaps to some extent be persuaded to increase their spending at the expense of their saving, though even this is very doubtful. At the present time saving by individuals is due much more to the inability to buy what they want than to the appeals to buy bonds even though these are backed by the touching appeal that by so doing we can win the war, save the lives of our loved ones in the army, and make a good profit at the same time. As regards investment by business men the effects of ballyhoo are even more doubtful, for even if they should temporarily be effective, the results in unprofitable investments would very soon become apparent and no advertising can for long hope to overcome this influence.

The basic point that interests me in your letter is the willingness you show to accept a theory if it is so simple that there is no room for bringing in the fact of human behavior even when that is indeed the thing we are trying to explain. It shows a willingness to believe in the crudest of magic provided it is called scientific and objective and overrides all objections by a declaration that it is “abstract” and refuses to listen [to] its error in every detail by declaring that it aims to provide a picture of the complete situation. The principle is that it does not matter if every element in it is false as long as the total picture it gives has some attractiveness if only because it paints a picture we would like to believe to be true.

Of course if the Keynesian theory were based upon some special theory of psychology, which otherwise we have little use for, or if it invented a peculiar psychology ad hoc, you would have a legitimate basis for objection. But all the psychology used here consists of well known and undisputed propositions such as that when people earn more they will on the whole spend more and also save more, and that business men are more likely to invest when business is good than when business is bad.

Some very conscientious economists have made very careful attempts to prove these propositions by statistics, and with some success. I do not think I am too dogmatic in declaring that in the light of our everyday experience we could legitimately assume these propositions to be true even in the absence of these carful studies. And if the propositions about spending etc are not fitted into a theory like the Marxian theory (to a great extent I think they can be so fitted in) the latter is unsatisfactory. I get the feeling I remember having when I was an undergraduate in economics and a much more orthodox Marxist than I am now. I then had the ambition of showing how the behavior of the individuals fitted in the Marxian generalities of the laws of motion of the society as a whole. If the theory of how the individual parts behave does not fit in with the theory of how the totality behaves that is evidence that at least one of the theories is wrong.

This seems a little long-winded, but I hope my attitude will be apparent. If this is not clear perhaps we can meet sometime and talk it out.

Greetings to Nora

Yours sincerely,

Abba P. Lerner.

 

Source: Library of Congress. Abba P. Lerner Papers. Box 6, Folder 8 “’B’ miscellany”.

 

Image Source: Publicity photo of Abba Lerner from Beth Emet’s announcement of speakers in its 1958 Forum (that included besides Dr. Abba Lerner, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. as well as the actor Theodore Bikel) in Library of Congress. Abba P. Lerner Papers. Box 6, Folder 8 “’B’ miscellany”.

Categories
Economists

Abba Lerner’s Roadtrip to Meet Trotsky, 1938

 

 

In August 1938 at age 34 Abba Lerner took his legendary road-trip from Colorado Springs to Mexico City and then back to Chicago where he wrote a slightly more than three page travel letter that includes a description of his two “lengthy interviews” with Leon Trotsky.

The typescript I found in Lerner’s papers at the Library of Congress was formatted as presumably a round-robin letter with a temporary return address. I limit myself to the economic content–the impressions and adventures on the road must wait. 

It turns out that a woman graduate student from Chicago who was a co-driver on the road-trip was later to receive an acknowledgment in a footnote to a famous paper written by my dissertation adviser, Evsey Domar. (I score that three degrees of separation between Leon Trotsky and the curator of Economics in the Rear-View Mirror!)

A tip of the hat to Olav Bjerkholt for his helpful comment to this posting:  at the 4th Annual Research Conference on Economics and Statistics of the Cowles Commission at Colorado Springs, July 20, 1938 there is a wonderful group picture where Abba Lerner (wearing his legendary sandals) is to be seen less than two weeks before heading out on his road-trip to Mexico City.

In August 1944 the sociologist Daniel Bell and Abba Lerner exchanged two letters in which Lerner, while considering himself a marxist, defends the elements of human psychology introduced by Keynes into his macroeconomic model. Interestingly, Daniel Bell saw where the “confidence fairy” fits into the Keynesian model.

_______________________

Excerpts from Lerner’s letter

c/o Oskar Lange
Department of Economics
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

August 31, 1938

I left Colorado Springs with Alice on August 2nd or 3rd for Mexico…

…We spent ten days in and around Mexico City. Had two lengthy interviews with Trotsky in which we discussed Dialectics, the Syllogism, the French Turn and the possible significance of work on the economics of socialism and the use of the price mechanism. Trotsky is very good-looking, appeared to be in very good health, and is a most charming and tolerant person in discussion. He uses the word Dialectical of any argument as I would use the word sensible, or adequate or legitimate. He is not guilty of any of the false or superstitious uses of the concept on which I tested him. He appears to be ignorant of modern symbolic logic and regard [sic] my interpretation of the syllogism as a sophistication which the Aristotelian concept could not bear. He was extremely witty. My insistence on the universal validity of the Syllogism reminded him of the first sentence of the Gospel of St. John, “In the beginning was Logos”, and my explanation that the law of contradiction was merely an agreement among sensible people not to use the same symbol for contradictory propositions reminded him of the fiction of the historical social contract. He immediately recognized my interest in price mechanisms in a socialist society as a symptom of my undialectical thinking, but was sufficiently impressed with some arguments I put forward on this and other subjects to grant that they were quite dialectical. Finally he declared that although skeptical he would read some of my articles on socialist policy since there might be something to them. He seemed to be particularly moved when I said that the chief value of a price system is to provide some principles in place of the elaboration of arbitrary precedents and thereby to lessen the importance of the bureaucracy and the danger of their development into a beaurocratic [sic] caste. I am not very hopeful of converting him on this subject but I shall continue to try – using Lange’s book. I enjoyed the discussions immensely. Alice [Lerner’s first wife, Alice Sendak (divorced May 1958)] says I was in good form and Mary [Mary Wise (Smelker), a research student from Northwestern University met by Abba Lerner at the Cowles Commission meetings at Colorado Springs to help with the driving since Alice did not know how to drive] considered my argument to be less witty than Trotsky’s but more cogent. However she agreed with me on the matters in the first place – except for the matter of the French Turn of which, as she says, she is a living example won from the S. P. in Chicago.

We also had a series of discussions with some minor Trotskyists, devotees, secretaries and guards of the Old Man, Joe Hanson, Sarah and some others. These were were [sic] much more dogmatic and difficult to argue with than the Old Man himself.

…Another interesting man we met was Fritz Bach, an economist and sort of new dealer adviser to the Government. We had been trying to get in touch with him for a long time and finally we woke him up early in the morning after a most adventurous search into the suburbs where the pavements were all pulled up and we had to go through great mud holes, some of the mud getting onto my shirt collar. Bach then had lunch with us and with Josue Saenz and economist (research student) who is studying in London. Lunch lasted from 1 till 5 with Bach speaking most of the time about Mexican Economics and occasionally about Mexican Politics. His most wonderful story is about Manuilsky who came up to Mexico a number of years ago to instruct the C. P. on how and when to make the revolution. When he had been in the country three weeks he saw a servant maid in Rivera’s house and asked how she came to look so dark. When told she was Indian he expressed surprise that there were still any Indians in Mexico.

…Here [Chicago] I settle down to write this letter, glad to stop travelling for a bit and itching to get some work done, interrupted every few minutes by Lange who brings some new member of the department to be introduced to me, impressing on me the conviction that I am going to have a grand time here.

Source:  Library of Congress, Papers of Abba P. Lerner, Box 25, Folder 3 (1937-39).

_______________________

WHO’S WHO

Mary Wise Smelker born 18 March 1914 in Chicago, died 23 February 2000 in Colorado.

In his famous paper Evsey Domar “Capital Expansion, Rate of Growth, and Employment” Econometrica, Vol. 14, No. 2 (April, 1946) mentions her. In the first footnote to the paper he thanks the fellow members of the “Little Seminar” that included among others Paul Baran, James S. Duesenberry, Lloyd A. Metzler, Richard A. Musgrave, Melvin W. Reder and Tiber de Scitovszky as well as Mary Wise Smelker.

Smelker, Mary Wise, government; b. Chicago, 1914; B.S., Northwestern, 1937, M.S., 1939; stud., Chicago, 1939-40. FIELDS 2d, 4b. PUB. The Impact of Federal Direct Taxes on the Distribution of After Tax Increase, National Tax Jour., Editor, Bur. of National Affairs, 1955-59; analyst, Bur. of the Budget, 1962-63; sr. economist, Bur. of Labor Stats., 1963-67, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System since 1967. ADDRESS Bus. Conditions Section, Research Div., Bd. of Govrs. of the Federal Reserve System, Watergate Bldg., Rm. 1010, 20th and Constitution Ave., Washington, DC 20551.

Source: Handbook of the American Economic Association, Biographical Listings of Members, American Economic Review, Vol. 59, No. 6. (Jan., 1970)p. 407.

 

Fritz Bach
For Spanish readers, the book by Maneul López de la Parra, El pensamiento económico de Fritz Bach, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Facultad de Economía, 2005.

 

Josué Sáenz
According to Sarah L. Babb in her Managing Mexico: Economists from Nationalism to Neoliberalism (Princeton University Press, 2001, p. 83), Josué Sáenz received his B.A. from Swarthmore College in the 1930s and became the director of the Department of Credit of the Finance Ministry in 1946.

 

Dimitri Manuilsky (1883-1959
Head of Comintern from 1929 to 1934. He was later the head of the Ukrainian delegation to the United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Francisco (1945) and served as the foreign minister of Ukraine (1944-1952).

_______________________

Image Source: Group photograph, dated 1938, from the Library of the London School of Economics with Abba Lerner seated right.

Categories
Chicago Economists

Chicago. Talent-Scouting for New Faculty, Joint Appointments and Visiting Faculty, 1945

__________________________

On April 10, 1945, the chairman of the University of Chicago’s economics department, Professor Simeon E. Leland, submitted a 77 page (!) memorandum to President Robert M. Hutchins entitled “Postwar Plans of the Department of Economics–A Wide Variety of Observations and Suggestions All Intended To Be Helpful in Improving the State of the University”.

In his cover letter Leland wrote “…in the preparation of the memorandum, I learned much that was new about the past history of the Department. Some of this, incorporated in the memorandum, looks like filler stuck in, but I thought it ought to be included for historical reasons and to furnish some background for a few of the suggestions.” 

In recent posts I have provided a list of visiting professors who taught economics at the University of Chicago up through 1944 (excluding those visitors who were to receive permanent appointments) and supporting tables with enrollment trends and faculty data (ages and educational backgrounds).

In this post we have three lists of names for economists who in 1945 could be taken into consideration for either permanent economics, joint appointments with other department or visiting appointments at the University of Chicago. Many names are immediately recognisable, others less so, and other known names left unnamed. Instead of observing the actual choices of the department, we have, so to speak, an observation of the “choice set” as perceived by the department.

______________________________

          The following list of possible additions to the staff of the Department of Economics represents an enumeration of suggestions made by various members of the Department. It, of course, does not include all of those whom the Department would like to invite as permanent members of the University staff. Many of those whom we would most like to have, it is well-known, are not available; nor can the Department be sure that those listed below would favorably consider an invitation to join our staff. Likewise, this list must not be construed as nominations for membership in the Department. Some members of the staff are known to object to the inclusion of some of the names listed below. But if unanimous consent were required before suggestions could be made, little progress in building a Department would be possible. In its present state, the list is only an enumeration of suggestions warranting further inquiry. The fields of interest of many of the potential candidates overlap and the appointment of some individuals would make it undesirable, or at least uneconomic, to appoint others. Nevertheless, the list does given an idea of some persons who might be considered for future appointments. This list, like any other enumeration, is subject to constant revision, both in the addition or subtraction of names.

Name

 Present Location

Field of Interest or Specialization
Abraham (sic) Bergson University of Texas Wages and Wage Theory
Robert Bryce Ottawa, Canada
Norman Buchanan University of California Public Utilities, Corporation Finance, Business Cycles (also possible interest in United States Economic History)
Earl Hamilton Northwestern University Economic History
Albert G. Hart C.E.D., Chicago Theory, Finance, etc.
J. R. Hicks University of Manchester, England Economic Theory
Harold A. Innis University of Toronto Economic History
Maurice Kelso University of Wisconsin Land Economics
Tjalling Koopmans Cowles Commission Statistics; Mathematical Economics; Business Cycles; Shipping
Simon Kuznets University of Pennsylvania National Income; Historical Statistics
Sanford Mosk University of California Economic History
Charles A. Myers Massachusetts Institute of Technology Labor; Industrial Relations
Walter Rostow Columbia University Economic History (XIX Century)
Leonard Salter University of Wisconsin Land Economics
T. Scitovszky London School of Economics; U.S. Army Theory of Capital and Interest; Theory of Tariffs
Arthur Smithies University of Michigan; Bureau of the Budget, Washington, D. C. Fiscal Policy; Theory; Money and Banking
Eugene Staley School of Advanced International Studies (Washington, D.C.) International Economics; Foreign Trade
George Stigler University of Minnesota Theory and Foreign Trade
R. H. Tawney London School of Economics Economic History
Allen Wallis Stanford University Statistics

______________________________

Joint Appointments

The Department of Economics shares an interest in many fields with other departments, schools and divisions of the University. It recognizes that most problems of the Social Sciences have economic aspects, and other aspects as well. Many of the fields embraced within particular disciplines are explained by accident or tradition, not always by logic. No one department can, therefore, assert a valid claim for the exclusive staffing of fields of interest held in common with other branches of knowledge. It seems wisest to develop these common grounds through joint appointments. Not only does this enable us to attract to the University more outstanding scholars than the fellowship of one department might provide, but it should also place at the disposition of those interested in promoting joint fields, perhaps, larger resources than either acting alone could command.

Joint appointments, too, will tend to integrate the Social Sciences with the other schools and departments affected, as well as contribute to the unity of the University as a whole. The Department of Economics, therefore, ventures to suggest joint appointments in the following fields:

Fields Units Affected
Trusts and Monopolies Business, Law, Economics
Railroads and Transportation Business, Economics
Public Utilities Economics, Political Science, Law
Social Control of Business Business, Law, Political Science, Economics
Advanced Applied Mathematics and Statistics Economics, Mathematics, Business, Institute of Statistics, other departments interested in statistics
Urban Planning (or the Utilization of Land) Geography, Political Science, Economics, Law, Business, Sociology
Social Legislation, particularly affecting Labor Business, Sociology, Social Service Administration, Law, Political Science, Economics

[…]

Among those who might be proposed for joint appointments are the following:

Name Present Location Field of Interest Appropriate Appointment
Charles L. Dearing Brookings Institution and U.S. Government Transportation Economics, Business
Corwin D. Edwards Northwestern University Trusts, Monopolies, Control of Business Political Science, Law, Economics
Milton Friedman Columbia University Economic Theory, Public Finance, Monetary Policy Economics, Institute of Statistics
Homer Hoyt Regional Plan Association, Inc., New York, N.Y. Land Planning Economic Geography, Political Science
David E. Lilienthal T. V. A. Public Utilities Political Science, Law, Economics
Abraham Wald Columbia University Applied Mathematics, Statistics Mathematics, Economics
Allen Wallis Columbia University Applied Mathematics, Statistics Mathematics, Economics
Samuel S. Wilks Princeton University Applied Mathematics, Statistics Mathematics, Economics

Visiting Professorships

Each department needs to diversify its courses. Too frequently the attempt at diversification is made by adding permanent members to the regular staff. The need can best be met by the appointment of visiting professors.

[…]

A list of some who might be invited to the University as Visiting Professors is as follows:

Name Present Location Fields of Interest
John D. Black Harvard Agricultural Economics
(J.) Roy Blough U. S. Treasury Public Finance
Kenneth Boulding Iowa State College Economic Analysis; Theory of Capital
Karl Brandt Food Institute, Stanford U. Agricultural Economics
Harry G. Brown University of Missouri Economic Theory, Public Finance
J. Douglas Brown Princeton University Industrial Relations
Edward H. Chamberlain(sic) Harvard Economic Theory; Monopolistic Competition
J. M. Clark Columbia University Economic theory
J. B. Condliffe California International Trade; International Commercial Policy
Joseph S. Davis Food Institute, Stanford U. Agricultural Economics
Milton Gilbert Office of Price Administration, Washington, D.C. Economic Theory; Price Control
T. Haavelmo Norwegian Shipping Administration, New York, N.Y. Econometrics
Alvin Hansen Harvard Economic Theory; Fiscal Policy
F. A. Hayek London School of Economics and Political Science History of Social Thought; Economic Theory; Monetary Policy
J. R. Hicks University of Manchester Economic Theory
George Jaszy U. S. Dept. of Commerce National Income; Business Analysis
O. B. Jesness University of Minnesota Agricultural Economics
Nicholas Kaldor London School of Economics Theory of the Firm; Imperfect Competition; Money; Business Cycles
M. Kalecki Institute of Statistics of University of Oxford, England Economic Fluctuations; Expenditure Rationing
M. Slade Kendrick Cornell University Public Finance; Farm Taxation
Arthur Kent San Francisco Attorney-at-Law Taxation
J. M. Keynes Cambridge University Fiscal and Monetary Policy
Simon S. Kuznets National Bureau of Economic Research; University of Pennsylvania Statistics; National Income and Its Problem
A. P. Lerner New School for Social Research Economic Theory; Fiscal Policy; Public Finance
Edward S. Mason Harvard University Economic Theory; International Trade and Trade Practices
Wesley C. Mitchell Columbia University Money and Prices
Jacob Mosak Office of Price Administration, Washington, D.C. Economic Theory; Statistics; Control of Prices
R. A. Musgrave Federal Reserve Board, Washington, D. C. Public Finance
Randolph Paul Lord, Day and Lord, Attorneys-at-Law Taxation
Paul A. Samuelson Massachusetts Institute of Technology Economic Theory; Money and Banking; Fiscal Policy
Lawrence H. Seltzer Wayne University Money and Banking; Public Debts; Fiscal Policy
Carl S. Shoup Columbia University Public Finance
Sumner H. Slichter Harvard University Business Economics
Richard Stone England Statistics; National Income
R. H. Tawney London School of Economics Economic History
Abraham Wald Columbia University Mathematics and Statistics
John H. Williams Harvard University Money and Banking

In the past, the Department has supplemented its staff by the appointment of visiting professors, but the invitations have ordinarily been restricted to the Summer Quarter in order (1) to relieve the regular staff from summer teaching and (2) to provide “window-dressing” to make the Summer Quarters more attractive to new students. The potentialities of the visiting professorship can hardly be realized when the practice is applied only to the Summer Quarter. That it has made that Quarter more attractive would seem to be indicated by the outstanding economists who have been guests of the University of Chicago.

[…]

The practice of inviting outstanding men to the University of Chicago seems to have been more prevalent in the early years of the University than it is today. Visiting appointments also declined with the strained finances of the University during the late depression. The Department is anxious to develop a program of instruction and research based upon the policy of the regular employment of visitors. A sum, equal to the stipend of a full professor, if used to finance a program of regular visitors, would add greater content and prestige to the Department than could be secured in any other way.

Source: University of Chicago Library, Department of Special Collections. Office of the President. Hutchins Administration Records. Box 73, Folder “Economics Dept., “Post-War Plans” Simeon E. Leland, 1945″.

Categories
Chicago Economists

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

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

______________________

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

_____________________

Milton Friedman to T.W. Schultz
29 March 1954

15 Latham Road
Cambridge, England
March 29, 1954

 

Dear Ted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours

[signed]
Milton

 

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

 

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

Categories
Economists ERVM

Roosevelt College. Abba Lerner with a Phillips Moniac, 1951

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

1951_11_ScreenshotMoniac

 

______________________

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

Categories
Courses Economists Harvard

Harvard Economics. Hansen and Williams Fiscal Seminar 1937-1944

Motivation
Fiscal Policy Seminar 1937-38
Fiscal Policy Seminar 1938-39
Fiscal Policy Seminar 1939-40
Fiscal Policy Seminar 1940-41
Fiscal Policy Seminar 1941-42
Fiscal Policy Seminar 1942-43
Fiscal Policy Seminar 1943-44
Fiscal Policy Seminar 1944-45

___________________________

 

From the first annual report of the Graduate School of Public Administration by Dean John H. Williams for 1937-1938

[p. 298] Concerning the seminars which constitute our program of work little further comment seems necessary. A statement of last year’s program and that being followed this year is given in the appendix, where we have sought to describe in detail the content of the seminars and our methods of conducting them. Since properly qualified students carrying on graduate study in other schools and departments of the University may also participate in our seminars the program of the School embraces a student body many times larger than the number of fellows formally registered in the School. Thus at the present time there is a total enrollment of one hundred and eighty-eight students in the various seminars of the School. We began last year with five seminars and have expanded the program this year to eleven, of which five are full-year and six half-year seminars. In selecting the subjects we have been guided in large measure by our own interests and competence, but within these limits we have sought for subjects presenting problems of large public importance, problems both of policy and of procedure, requiring the combined efforts of different disciplines within the social sciences and permitting of effective cooperation between the University and the public service. Especially we have sought to find subjects that are at the research stage, and to put the emphasis upon investigation rather than upon formal instruction. Our interest is quite as much in learning for ourselves as in attempting to teach others…

[p. 314]

Fiscal Policy.
Professors WILLIAMS and HANSEN.

This seminar is concerned with public finance in relation to economic, political, and social institutions and systems. It deals with the monetary aspects of expenditures and revenues, with public finance as a compensatory mechanism in the business cycle, and with the social and political implications of government spending.

___________________________

 

FISCAL POLICY SEMINAR, 1937-1938

Source:
Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XXXVI February 28, 1939, No. 4.
Issue containing the report of the President of Harvard College and reports of departments for 1937-38, pp. 307-310.

The Fiscal Policy Seminar in 1937-1938 was conducted on two planes: (1) a general meeting which included active members of the seminar as well as others in the University, both graduate students and faculty members, who had a special interest in one or more of the fields covered at these meetings; (2) a meeting restricted to the working members of the seminar.

The general seminar session met each week on Friday from four to six and was addressed by a visiting consultant of the School. The afternoon session was followed by dinner with the visiting guest attended mainly by selected members from the working seminar who were especially interested in the particular topic under discussion, the dinner in turn being followed by an extended discussion, lasting frequently until 10 or 10:30 o’clock. The visiting speakers were for the most part government officials, but there were also included various officials in the Treasury, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Federal Reserve Board in Washington, Social Security Board, Works Progress Administration and the Federal Housing Administration….

The general seminar session with visiting consultants proved extremely valuable from various standpoints. It proved a means by which government officials on their part came into closer contact with the Faculty and students of the Graduate School of Public Administration and accordingly acquired a personal interest in its problems, and on the other side a means of presenting to the School in a more vital way the problems confronting the government. This type of close contact, moreover, is believed to be a useful means of developing placement openings for the graduates of the School in Washington. The discussions with the visiting consultants in the Friday sessions, moreover, proved extremely stimulating as a background for the research work done by the working members of the restricted seminar group.

The working seminar met each week on Monday from four to six. At these sessions papers were presented by various members of the seminar. Out of these papers a number of articles were prepared for submission for publication in various economic journals. It appears that out of the year’s work perhaps some four or five articles in leading journals are likely to materialize. Some have already been accepted.

The combined work of these two seminar meetings forms the background of a research project in Fiscal Policy, which it is planned will eventuate in a volume exploring the problem in a general way and raising important problems for further research.

Program of Friday Meetings

October 15. F. J. BAILEY — “The Work of the Federal Bureau of the Budget.”

October 22. CARL SHOUP — “General Over-All View of the American Tax System.”

October 29. EUSTACE SELIGMAN — “The Effect of the Capital Gains Tax on the Investment Market.”

November 12. GEORGE C. HAAS, JOSEPH S. ZUCKER, L. H. SELTZER and A. F. O’DONNELL — “The Federal Tax Structure.”

November 26. LAWRENCE SELTZER — “The Undistributed Profits Tax.”

December 3. GERHARD COLM — “Economic Consequences of Recent American Tax-Policy.”

December 10. GEORGE O. MAY — “The 1936 Federal Tax Legislation.”

December 17. JACOB VINER — “The General Relations between Fiscal Policy and the Business Cycle.”

February 11. DANIEL W. BELL — “Treasury Financing”; W. R. BURGESS – “Relations of the Reserve Banks and the Treasury.”

February 18. E. A. GOLDENWEISER — “Relations of Deficit Financing to the Banking System.”

February 25. WOODLIEF THOMAS — “Fiscal Policy and the Money Market.”

March 4. LAUCHLIN CURRIE — “Federal Income -Creating Expenditures.”

March 18. A. J. ALTMEYER and WILBUR J. COHEN — “Old Age Insurance and Old Age Assistance: Current and Future Prospects.”

March 25. MERRILL G. MURRAY and JOHN J. CORSON — “The Social Security Taxes.”

April 1. ERNEST M. FISHER — “The Federal Housing Administration.”

April 15. ARTHUR R. GAYER — “Compensatory Spending.”

April 22. CORRINGTON GILL — “Administrative and Fiscal Problems of the Relief Administration.”

April 29. LEWIS DOUGLAS — “Government Fiscal Policy.”

May 6. GUNNAR MYRDAL — “Fiscal Policy in Sweden.”

Program of Monday Meetings

October 18. R. A. MUSGRAVE — “The Twentieth Century Fund Report on Facing the Tax Problem.”

October 25. G. G. JOHNSON — “The Capital Gains Tax.”

November 1. R. V. GILBERT — “The Price of Common Stock as an Element in the Interest Price Structure.”

November 8. EMILE DESPRES — “The Effect of the Capital Gains Tax upon Capital Formation.”

November 15. Dr. HEINRICH BRUENING — “Monetary and Fiscal Policies in Germany during the Depression.”

November 22. WALTER SALANT — “The Effect of Securities Market Regulations upon Capital Formation.”

November 29. K. E. POOLE — “Tax Remission as a Compensatory Device.”

December 6. E. P. HERRING — “Administrative Problems in the Formulation and Execution of Fiscal Policy.”

December 13. E. N. GRISWOLD — “Legal Aspects of the Undistributed Profits Tax.”

February 14. ROBERT FRASE — “Economic Effects of Social Insurance Reserves, with particular reference to Unemployment Insurance Reserves.”

February 21. D. W. LUSHER — “The Relation of the Structure of Interest Rates to Investment.”

February 28. R. A. MUSGRAVE — “Limits in Public Debt and Taxation.”

March 7. WALTER SALANT — “Effects of Fiscal Policy on Business Stability.”

March 14. HERMAN M. SOMERS — “Future Fiscal Burdens Arising from the Social Security Program.”

March 21. MARTIN KROST — “Tax Variability as a Compensatory Stabilizing Device.”

March 28. NORTON LONG — “Some Aspects of Fiscal Planning under Democratic Government.”

April 11. S. J. DENNIS — “The Relation of the Undistributed Profits Tax and the Soldiers’ Bonus to the 1937 Depression.”

April 25. EMILE DESPRES — “Ezekiel’s Proposal to Secure Full Employment.”

May 2. G. G. JOHNSON — “The Trend Toward Treasury Control of Credit in the United States.”

May 9. GUNNAR MYRDAL — “Fiscal and Monetary Policy in Sweden.”

 

___________________________

 

FISCAL POLICY SEMINAR, 1938-1939.
Professors Williams and Hansen

Source:
Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XXXVII March 30, 1940, No. 12.
Issue containing the report of the President of Harvard College and reports of departments for 1938-39, pp. 342-345.

The Fiscal Policy Seminar was conducted in 1938-1939 on substantially the same plan as in 1937-1938; that is, the general seminar sessions, which met on Fridays from four to six, were addressed by a visiting consultant and were attended by the active members of the seminar, as well as by faculty members and graduate students who were especially interested in the topics under discussion. Smaller meetings were held on Monday afternoons from four to six and were attended only by students engaged in research in the field of fiscal policy.

The general sessions were held less frequently than last year – usually twice a month – and on two occasions were conducted jointly with the Administrative Process Seminar. These joint meetings were on the subjects of the capital budget and federal grants to states, in which both seminars had an interest.

At the three December meetings, “previews” were held of round table discussions which were conducted later in the month at the annual meeting of the American Economic Association. The round tables covered the topics “The Role of Public Investment and Consumer Capital Formation,” “Divergencies in the Development of Recovery in Various Countries,” and “The Workability of Compensatory Devices.” In each case three guest speakers presented papers covering different aspects of the problem and providing the basis for general discussion….

As last year, dinners attended by the visiting guest and a small group of students followed the Friday afternoon session, and in the evening informal meetings were held for further discussion.

At each Monday session, a paper was presented by a member of the group doing active research in fiscal policy. The paper was discussed by the other members of the seminar. These papers and discussions formed the basis for theses which were submitted at the close of the year by students who were taking the seminar for academic credit.

The research project begun last year has resulted in a preliminary manuscript on “Fiscal Policy in Relation to the Business Cycle and Chronic Unemployment.” During the coming year, it will be revised and expanded with a view to publication.

The following is a list of the Monday meetings of the seminar:

October 3.            An Over-all View of the Current United States Tax System: Federal, State and Local.

October 10.          An Over-all View of Governmental Expenditures, 1913-1938: Federal, State and Local.

        An Over-all View of the Rise of Public Debt, 1913-1938: Federal, State and Local.

October 17.          The 1938 Revenue Act.

October 24.          Issues Raised by the Colm-Lehmann Pamphlets.

October 31.          The Economic Consequences of Retirement of the Public Debt.

November 14.      The Theoretical and Practical Implications of Separating the Investment Budget from the Current Budget.

November 21.      New York City’s Experience.

November 28.     A Re-examination of the Stabilization of Consumer Income.

December 5.        A Program for the Cyclical Stabilization of Investment and Current Expenditures.

December 12.      Public Investment: History and Program for Future.

December 19.      An Analysis of Governmental Expenditures with a View to Showing the Effects of the Volume and Types of Different Expenditures on Consumption, Saving and Investment.

February 6.          Canadian Fiscal Relations.

February 13.        Japanese Monetary and Fiscal Recovery Policies.

February 20.       The Development of Budgetary Organization.

February 27.        Balkan Credit and Fiscal Policy.

March 6.               The Economic Implications of a Rising Public Debt.

March 13.             Consumption, Saving and Investment and Relief and Social Security.

March 20.            A Re-examination of the Stabilization of Consumer Income.

March 27.            Deficit Financing and the Banking System.

April 10.              Government Loans and Subsidies as a Stimulus to Private Investment.

April 17.               The Economic Effects of the Income Tax.

April 24.              Federal Aid to the States.

May 1.                   Some Attempts at the Statistical Determination of the Multiplier and the Propensity to Consume.

The non-resident consultants and the meetings which they attended were as follows:

October 7.            J. ROY BLOUGH, Director of Tax Research, Division of Tax Research, United States Treasury Department. Tax Policy in the United States Today.

October 28.         LAWRENCE H. SELTZER, Assistant Director, Division of Research and Statistics, United States Treasury Department. Tax Policy with Reference to Capital Accumulation.

November 7.       FRITZ LEHMANN, New School for Social Research. The German Situation.

November 18.     CHARLES W. ELIOT, 2nd., Executive Officer, National Resources Committee. Current and Capital Budgets.
GUNNAR MYRDAL, University of Stockholm. Swedish Budgetary Procedure.
This was a joint meeting with the Administrative Process Seminar.

November 25.     ROSWELL MAGILL, former Under Secretary of the Treasury. The Formulation of a Revenue Bill.

December 2.        Preview of American Economic Association Round Table on The Role of Public Investment and Consumer Capital Formation.

GERHARD COLM, New School for Social Research. The Government as Investor.

BENJAMIN W. LEWIS, Oberlin College. The Government as Competitor.

GRIFFITH JOHNSON, United States Treasury Department. The Effect of the Social Security Taxes on Consumption and Investment.

December 9.        Preview of American Economic Association Round Table on Divergencies in the Development of Recovery in Various Countries.

GOTTFRIED HABERLER, Harvard University. Recovery Policies in Democratic Countries.

GEORGE N. HALM, Tufts College. Recovery Policies in Totalitarian States.

EMIL LEDERER, New School for Social Research. Is There a World-wide Drift Toward Regimented Control of Industry?

December 16.      Preview of American Economic Association Round Table on the Workability of Compensatory Devices.

PAUL T. ELLSWORTH, University of Cincinnati. The Efficacy of Central Bank Policy.

PAUL A. SAMUELSON, Junior Fellow, Harvard University. The Theory of Pump-Priming Re-examined.

EMILE DESPRES, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, D. C. The Proposal to Tax Hoarding.

February 17.        LAUCHLIN CURRIE, Assistant Director, Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Problem of the Multiplier and the Propensities to Save and Consume and the Outlook for Capital Expenditures.

March 10.             GARDINER MEANS, Director, Industrial Section, National ResourcesCommittee. Discussion of preliminary edition of “Patterns of Resource Use” by the National Resources Committee.

March 17.             E. A. GOLDENWEISER, Director, Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The Problems of the Quantity and Quality of Money from the Point of View of Monetary Regulation.

April 14.               EWAN CLAGUE, Director, Bureau of Research and Statistics, Social Security Board. Federal Grants to States.

April 21.                J. DOUGLAS BROWN, Princeton University. A Survey of the Social Security Program in the United States.

April 28.               MARRINER ECCLES, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Financial and Fiscal Problems Faced by Capitalistic Democracies Today.

 

___________________________

 

THE FISCAL POLICY SEMINAR, 1939-1940
Professors Williams and Hansen

Source:
Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XXXVIII April 10, 1941, No. 20.
Issue containing the report of the President of Harvard College and reports of departments for 1939-40, pp. 324-326.

 

The Fiscal Policy Seminar continued its plan of holding meetings on Mondays from four to six, at which students actively engaged in research in the field of fiscal policy presented papers for discussion, and on occasional Fridays, when visiting consultants addressed the group. The Friday meetings, held usually twice a month, were attended by interested faculty members and graduate students as well as by the active members of the seminar. …Following the more formal afternoon presentation on Fridays, a part of the seminar usually met with the speaker in the evening for further informal discussion of the topic.

On October 20, the seminar met with the Administrative Process Seminar to hear Mr. Robert H. Rawson, a former Littauer Fellow, speak on the work of the Federal Bureau of the Budget. Two meetings were held jointly with the Price Policies Seminar – one in November at which Mr. Leon Henderson discussed price rigidities in our economy, and one in February at which Mr. Richard V. Gilbert, Chief of the Industrial Economics Division of the Department of Commerce, spoke on “War Inventories and the Current Economic Outlook.”

Discussion at the first five Monday meetings was based on the manuscript Fiscal Policy in Relation to the Business Cycle, a research project which has grown out of the meetings during the past two years. The subsequent Monday sessions were devoted to the presentation of papers by members of the group. These papers were discussed by the seminar and presented as theses at the end of the year by those receiving academic credit for the course.

The program of Monday meetings was as follows:

Professor ALVIN H. HANSEN

The Consumption Function.

Current Trends in Economic Theory with Special Reference to the Business Cycle.

Secular Trends in Investment and Saving.

Professor JOHN H. WILLIAMS.

Shifts in Control of Depressions.

Theories of Compensatory Spending.

Budgeting and Fiscal Policy.

The Marginal Propensity to Import.

The Australian Multiplier.

Investment in the American Economy, 1850-1940.

Fiscal Aspects of Ireland’s Economic Nationalism.

The Power of the Federal Reserve System to Restrict Expansion.

Wartime Corporation Finance.

Wartime Finance in Great Britain.

Unemployment Insurance Funds.

The Effect of Deficit Financing on the Banking System.

Public Health.

The Capital Budget.

The Implications of the Growth of Life Insurance for Full Employment.

Taxation in the Business Cycle.

Public Investment.

Redistribution of Income as a Result of Federal Expenditures.

The following is a list of the non-resident consultants and the topics which they discussed:

October 6.     ISADOR LUBIN, Commissioner of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor.

Subject: The Position of Labor Relations and Labor Costs in the Current Situation.

October 20.  HARRY D. WHITE, Director, Division of Monetary Research, United States Treasury Department.

Subject: Gold and Foreign Exchange.

October 30.  ROBERT H. RAWSON, Junior Administrative Analyst, Bureau of the Budget.

Subject: Organization and Methods of the Federal Bureau of the Budget.
(Joint meeting with the Administrative Process Seminar.)

November 13.LEON HENDERSON, Commissioner, Securities and Exchange Commission, and member of the Temporary National Economic Committee.

Subject: Price Rigidities in the American Economy.
(Joint meeting with the Price Policies Seminar.)

December 8. RAYMOND W. GOLDSMITH, Assistant Director, Research and Statistical Section, Securities and Exchange Commission.

Subject: The Volume and Components of Saving in the United States.

February 26. RICHARD V. GILBERT, Chief, Industrial Economics Division, United States Department of Commerce.

Subject: War Inventories and the Current Economic Outlook.

March 1.        WARD SHEPARD, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, United States Department of Agriculture.

Subject: A Proposed Forest Policy for the United States.

March 8.       EMILE DESPRES, Senior Economist, Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Subject: Internal Expansion and the International Position of the United States.

March 29.     GARDINER MEANS, Economic Adviser, National Resources Planning Board.

Subject: The Structure of the American Economy.

April 12.        M. A. HEILPERIN, Institute for Higher International Studies, Geneva.

Subject: The International Monetary System and the Business Cycle.

May 3.           GERHARD COLM, Economist, Division of Industrial Economics, United States Department of Commerce.

Subject: Some Problems of Long-Run Tax Policy.

 

___________________________

 

THE FISCAL POLICY SEMINAR, 1940-1941.
Professors Williams and Hansen 

Source:
Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XXXIX February 25, 1942, No. 5.
Issue containing the report of the President of Harvard College and reports of Departments for 1940-41, pp. 323-326.

The Fiscal Policy Seminar continued its established practice of including in its program meetings at which visiting consultants discussed various topics of interest to the group, and sessions devoted to the presentation of student reports. The reports were presented in the second semester and were discussed at length by the other members of the seminar….

Seven of the meetings were held jointly with other seminars – four with the International Economic Relations Seminar and three with the Agricultural, Forestry, and Land Policy Seminar.

 

The program of meetings was as follows:

September 30. Professor HANSEN.

October 7.      Professor WILLIAMS.

October 11.   SVEND LAURSEN, Student, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Harvard University.

Subject: International Trade and the Multiplier.
(Joint meeting with International Economic Relations Seminar.)

October 21. Professor HANSEN and Professor WILLIAMS.

October 25. MARTIN KROST, Senior Economist, Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Subject: The Excess Profits Tax.

October 28. RICHARD A. MUSGRAVE, Instructor, Department of Economics, Harvard University.

Subject: Report of the Canadian Royal Commission on Dominion Provincial Fiscal Relations.

November 4. Professor HANSEN.

November 8. GEORGE TERBORGH, Senior Economist, Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Subject: Prospective Accumulated Backlog in Capital Goods and Durable Consumers’ Goods Industries in the Post-Defense Period.

November 18. ELIZABETH B. SCHUMPETER.

Subject: Fiscal and Monetary Policy in Japan.

November 25. BENJAMIN H. HIGGINS and RICHARD A. MUSGRAVE, Instructors, Department of Economics, Harvard University.

Subject: The Savings-Investment Problem Re-examined.

December 2. Professor HANSEN.

December 9. DAN T. SMITH, Associate Professor of Finance and Taxation, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.

Subject: The Role of Borrowing in the Defense Program.

December 16. Professor HANSEN.

December 20. GUY GREER, Federal Housing Administration.

Subject: The Organization of the Federal Housing Program.

February 3.   Student Report.

Subject: National Income and Military Effort.

February 10. Student Report.

Subject: United States Housing Program During and After the Defense Program.

February 17. ERIC ENGLUND, Assistant Chief, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, United States Department of Agriculture.

Subject: Alternatives in Financing of the Agricultural Programs.

(Joint meeting with Agricultural, Forestry and Land Seminar.)

February 21. HARRY D. WHITE, Director, Division of Monetary Research, United States Treasury Department.

Subject: Blocked Balances.

(Joint meeting with International Economic Relations Seminar.)

February 24. J. KEITH BUTTERS, Instructor, Department of Economics, Harvard University.

Subject: Discriminatory Features in Federal Corporation Income Taxes.

March 3. J. KENNETH GALBRAITH, National Defense Advisory Commission.

Subject: The Farm Credit Administration and Related Farm Credit Problems.

(Joint meeting with Agricultural, Forestry, and Land Policy Seminar.)

March 10. Student report.

Subject: Trends in the Fiscal Incapacity of State and Local Governments and Their Impact on Defense and Post-Defense Policy.

March 17. Student Report.

Subject: The Effect of the Tax Structures on Economic Activity in the United States and Great Britain, 1929-1937.

March 21. RICHARD V. GILBERT, National Defense Advisory Commission.

Subject: The American Defense Program.

(Joint meeting with International Economic Relations Seminar.)

March 24. Student Report.

Subject: Essays on Fiscal Policy and the Building Cycle.

I.  Transport Development and Building Cycles.
II. Monetary Control of the Building Cycle.

April 7. Student Report.

Subject: The Monetary Powers of Some Federal Agencies outside the Federal Reserve System.

April 14. Student Report.

Subject: Incentive Taxation.

April 18. Student Reports.

Subjects: The Use of Credit as an Instrument of Social Amelioration in Agriculture. Credit for a Solvent Agriculture.

(Joint meeting with Agricultural, Forestry, and Land Policy Seminar.)

April 25. CARL SHOUP, Professor of Economics, Columbia University.

Subject: Defense Financing.

April 28. Student Report.

Subject: The Economic Development of a War Economy.

May 2. GUSTAV STOLPER, Financial Adviser.

Subject: Financing the American Defense Program.

(Joint meeting with International Economic Relations Seminar.)

 

___________________________

 

FISCAL POLICY SEMINAR, 1941-1942
Professors Williams and Hansen

Source:
Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XLI, September 26, 1944, No. 23.
Issue containing the report of the President of Harvard College and reports of the departments for 1941-42, pp. 340-343.

 

Fiscal problems arising out of the war and plans for the post-war period were of dominant interest in the Fiscal Policy Seminar program during 1941-42. With regard to post-war problems particular attention was paid to the question of federal-state-local fiscal relations, and a special section of the seminar library was devoted to books and pamphlets on this topic.

Meetings were held on Mondays and Fridays, the latter being given over mainly to visiting consultants, with reports and discussions by student and faculty members of the seminar concentrated on Mondays. As in previous years, several meetings were held jointly with other Seminars, eight with the International Economic Relations Seminar, and two with the Agricultural, Forestry, and Land Use Policy Seminar….

The program of meetings was as follows:

September 29. The Development of Fiscal Policy.

October 6.     Defense Financing.

October 17.   The Relation Between Fiscal Policy and Inflation.

October 20.  The Problem of Federal, State and Local Relationships.

HARVEY S. PERLOFF, Associate Economist, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

October 24.  The United States Housing Authority.

NATHAN STRAUS, Administration, United States Housing Authority.

October 27.  Fiscal Policy and Business Cycles.

October 31.   Urban Redevelopment.

GUY GREER, Senior Economist, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

November 3. Fiscal Policy and Business Cycles.

November 10. The Present State of Fiscal Policy.

November 17. The Multiplier.

November 21. The Federal Advisory Council.

WALTER LICHTENSTEIN, Vice-President, First National Bank of Chicago.

November 24. The Multiplier.

PAUL SAMUELSON, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Professor HABERLER.

November 28. Economic Warfare.

NOEL HALL, British Embassy.

December 1. The Multiplier.

PAUL SAMUELSON, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

December 5. International Economic Relations with Special Reference to the Post-War Situation.

ROBERT BRYCE, Department of Finance, Canada.

December 8. Post-War Problems.

Professors HABERLER and HARRIS as well as Professors WILLIAMS and HANSEN.

December 12. The Revenue Act of 1941.

J. KEITH BUTTERS, Department of Economics, Harvard University.

December 15. The Theory of Public Investment.

Professor HARRIS.

December 19. The 1942 Revenue Act.

ROY BLOUGH, Director of Tax Research, Treasury Department.

January 26. The Problem of Post-War Reconstruction.

PER JACOBSSEN, Economist, Bank for International Settlements.

February 2.  Economic Philosophy and Post-War Fiscal Policy.

ALEJANDRO SHAW, Argentina.

February 9.   Equalization Grants and Their Role in Fiscal Policy (student report).

February 13. Monopolistic Trading and International Relations.

JACOB VINER, Chicago University.

February 16. War Finance and Inflation (student report).

February 20. The Effect of Federalism on Fiscal Policy.

LUTHER GULICK, National Resources Planning Board.

March 2.       Agriculture in the Post-War Period.

LEONARD ELMHIRST, Elmhirst Foundation.

March 9.       War Finance and Direct Taxation (student report).

March 13.     Post-War Domestic and International Investments.

RICHARD M. BISSELL, Department of Commerce.

March 16.     Monetary Implications of Fiscal Policy.

March 20.     The Present Fiscal Situation.

ALBERT GAYLORD HART, Iowa State College.

March 23.     Problems of Monetary Control.

ROBERT V. ROSA, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and

PETER L. BERNSTEIN, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

March 27.     The Public Work Reserve.

BENJAMIN H. HIGGINS, Economic Consultant, Public Work Reserve.

April 6.          A High-Consumption vs. a High-Savings Economy (student report).

April 10.        Post-War Surpluses and Shortages in Plant and Equipment.

GEORGE TERBORGH, Senior Economist, Division of Research and Statistics, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

April 13.        Private Industry Post-War Planning.

DAVID C. PRINCE, Vice-President, General Electric Company.

April 17.        Commodity Taxation in a Progressive Tax System (student report).

April 24.       Government Lending Agencies.

ROBERT V. ROSA, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and

PETER L. BERNSTEIN, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

April 27.        The Impact of War Expenditures on State and Local Government (student report).

May 1.            The Inflationary Gap.

WALTER SALANT, Chief, Price and Economic Policy Section, Division of Research, Office of Price Administration.

May 21.         The Problem of Britain’s Food Supply.

E. M. H. LLOYD, Chairman, British Food Mission.

 

___________________________

 

FISCAL POLICY SEMINAR, 1942-43
Professors Williams and Hansen

Source:
Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XLI, September 28, 1944, No. 25.
Issue containing the report of the President of Harvard College and reports of the departments for 1942-43, pp. 243-245.

 

War and post-war fiscal problems were the main consideration in the Fiscal Policy Seminar in 1942-43. This included national aspects of inflationary and tax problems and post-war tax adjustments, as well as federal-state-local fiscal relations.

Meetings were held on Mondays and Fridays, the latter being given over mainly to visiting consultants, with reports and discussions by student and faculty members of the seminar concentrated on Mondays. As formerly, several meetings Were held jointly with other seminars….

The program of meetings was as follows:

October 5.     Professor HANSEN.

Subject: A Survey of the Fiscal.War Picture.

October 9.    MILTON GILBERT, Director of National Income Division, Department of Commerce.

Subject: Concepts of National Income and Its Statistical Measurement.

October 19.   Professor WILLIAMS.

Subject: The Present Status of Fiscal Policy.

October 23.  Professor PAUL SAMUELSON, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Subject: Consumption Function.

October 26. Professor WILLIAMS.

Subject: Changes in the Banking System.

October 30.  Professor LAWRENCE H. SELTZER, Wayne University.

Subject: Possible Techniques for the Working of the PostWar Economic System.

November 2. Professor A. P. LERNER, Amherst College.

Subject: Rate of Interest.

November 9. Professor HANSEN.

Subject: War Financing in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

November 13. Professor FRITZ MACHLUP, Buffalo University. (Joint meeting with International Economic Relations seminar.)

Subject: National Income, Employment and International Relations.

November 16. Professor HANSEN.

Subject: Federal, State, Local Fiscal Relations.

November 20. DAVID E. LILIENTHAL, Director, Tennessee Valley Authority.

Subject: The Tennessee Valley Authority.

November 23. Dr. JOHN KEITH BUTTERS, Harvard University.

Subject: Revenue Act of 1942.

November 27. Hon. GRAHAM F. TOWERS, Governor, Bank of Canada. (Joint meeting with International Economic Relations seminar.)

Subject: Canadian War Economic Measures.

November 30. Professor WILLIAMS.

Subject: Basic Issues of Fiscal Policy.

December 4. LYNN R. EDMINSTER, Vice-Chairman, U. S. Tariff Commission.

(Joint meeting with International Economic Relations seminar.)

Subject: The Reconstruction of World Trade After War.

December 7. Professor WILLIAMS.

Subject: Basic Issues of Fiscal Policy.

December 1. Professor SEYMOUR E. HARRIS. (Joint meeting with International Economic Relations seminar.)

Subject: War Problems of International Trade.

December 14. Professor HANSEN.

Subject: The Beveridge Report.

February 1.  Honorable HAROLD STASSEN, Governor of Minnesota.

Subject: Decentralized Government.

February 8.  HARVEY S. PERLOFF, Federal Reserve Board, Washington.

Subject: State-Local Fiscal Relations.

February 12. THOMAS MC KITTRICK, President of the Bank for International Settlements.

Subject: The Bank for International Settlements.

February 15. Professor HANSEN.

Subject: The Beveridge Plan and a Post-War Minimum Budget.

February 24. Dr. LEO PASVOLSKY, State Department. (Joint meeting with International Economic Relations seminar.)

Subject: Post-War Problems in International Trade.

March 1.        Dr. HANS STAEHLE, Harvard University.

Subject: Consumption and National Income in Post-War.

March 12.     Dr. RICHARD MUSGRAVE, Federal Reserve Board, Washington.

Subject: Revenue Bill-1943.

March 26.     Dr. PAUL STUDENSKI, Professor of Economics, New York University.

Subject: State-Local Fiscal Policies in New York in War-Time.

April 12.        EMILE DESPRES, Office of Strategic Services, Washington. (Joint meeting with International Economic Relations seminar.)

Subject: The Transfer Problem and the Over-Saving Problem in the Pre-War and Post-War Worlds.

April 16.        Dr. ALBERT HAHN. (Joint meeting with International Economic Relations seminar.)

Subject: Planned or Adjusted Post-War Economy.

May 8.           GUY GREER, Editor of Fortune Magazine.

Subject: Urban Redevelopment.

 

___________________________

 

FISCAL POLICY SEMINAR, 1943-44
Professors Williams and Hansen

Source:
Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XLIV, July 7, 1947, No. 20.
Issue containing the report of the President of Harvard College and reports of departments for 1943-4, pp. 269-270.

 

Fiscal problems of the war and in the postwar period were the general topics under discussion in the Fiscal Policy Seminar in I943-44. More specifically this included national aspects of consumption and saving, taxation, budgeting, and the public debt. Emphasis was also placed on the international financial and monetary problems. Several of the meetings were devoted to discussion of the special fiscal and monetary problems in a number of Latin American countries.

Meetings were held on Mondays and Fridays and consisted of reports by student and faculty members of the seminar and of discussions led by outside consultants and by Dean Williams and Professor Hansen. As in other years, a number of meetings were held jointly with other seminars….

The program of meetings was as follows:

November 8. Professor WILLIAMS.

Subject: General Survey of Fiscal Policy.

November 15. Professor WILLIAMS.

Subject: General Survey of Fiscal Policy (cont.).

November 19. Dr. J. ROY BLOUGH, Director of Tax Research, Treasury Department.

Subject: Some Administrative Aspects of Taxation.

November 22. G. NEIL PERRY, Director, Bureau of Economics and Statistics, British Columbia.

Subject: Fiscal Policy and the Canadian Economy.

November 29. Professor WILLIAMS.

Subject: Problems of International Monetary Stabilization.

December 6. HANS ADLER.

Subject: Population Growth and Fiscal Policy.

December 13. Professor WILLIAMS.

Subject: Problems of International Monetary Stabilization.

December 17. Dr. HARRY WHITE, Director of Monetary Research, Treasury Department.

Subject: Problems of International Stabilization.

December 20. Professor HANSEN.

Subject: Consumption and Saving during the War.

January 3.    Professor HANSEN.

Subject: Consumption and Saving in the Postwar.

January 10.  Professor GOTTFRIED HABERLER.

Subject: Reparations.

January 14.  Dr. N. NESS, Member of Mexican-U. S. Economic Committee.

Subject: Mexico.

January 17.  Dr. BEARDSLEY RUML, Federal Reserve Bank, New York.

Subject: Economic Budget and Fiscal Budget.

January 21.  Dr. P. T. ELLSWORTH, Economic Studies Division, Department of State.

Subject: Chile.

January 24.  Dr. DON HUMPHREY, Special Adviser on Price Control to Haitian Government.

Subject: Haiti.

January 31.  Dr. ROBERT TRIFFIN, Member of U. S. Economic Commission to Paraguay.

Subject: Money, Banking, and Foreign Exchanges in Latin America.

February 4.  Dr. MIRON BURGIN, Office of Coördinator of Inter-American Affairs.

Subject: Argentina.

March 31.     Mr. HENRY WALLICH.

Subject: Fiscal Policy and International Equilibrium.

April 14.        Mr. EVSEY DOMAR, Federal Reserve Board.

Subject: Limitation of Public Debt in Relation to National Income.

May 5.           Dr. J. KEITH BUTTERS and Dr. CHARLES ABBOTT, Harvard Business School.

Subject: Business Taxes.

May 19.         Mr. GUY GREER, Board of Editors, Fortune.

Subject: Urban Redevelopment.

 

___________________________

 

FISCAL POLICY SEMINAR, 1944-45
Professors Williams and Hansen

Source:
Official Register of Harvard University, Vol. XLV, December 1, 1948, No. 30.
Issue containing the report of the President of Harvard College and reports of departments for 1944-45, pp. 282-284.

 

Fiscal problems of the war and in the postwar period were the general topics under discussion in the Fiscal Policy Seminar in 1944-1945. More specifically this included national aspects of consumption and saving, taxation, budgeting, and the public debt. Emphasis was also placed on the international financial and monetary problems. Several of the meetings were devoted to discussion of the special fiscal and monetary problems in a number of Latin American countries.

Meetings were held on Mondays and Fridays and consisted of reports by student and faculty members of the seminar and of discussions led by outside consultants and by Dean Williams and Professor Hansen. As in other years, a number of meetings were held jointly with other seminars….

Three of the papers presented at these meetings were subsequently published in economic journals. The program of meetings was as follows:

*Sept. 11.       J. W. BEYEN, former president of the International Bank at Basle, Chairman of Netherlands Delegation at Bretton Woods.

Subject: Bretton Woods Conference.

*Sept. 18.      RAGNAR NURKSE of Economic and Financial Section of League of Nations.

Subject: Bretton Woods Conference.

*October 30. Professor DOUGLAS COPLAND, University of Melbourne, Australia.

Subject: Australian Problems in the Transition from War to Peace.

*The dates in September and October, while part of the Summer Term, were integrated in the year’s program.

November 6. Professor JOHN H. WILLIAMS.

Subject: Estimates of Postwar National Income and Employment.

November 13. Professor ALVIN H. HANSEN.

Subject: Wartime Fiscal Problems.

November 15. RANDOLPH PAUL, formerly with the U.S. Treasury.

Subject: Postwar Federal Taxation.

November 20. Dr. FREDERICK LUTZ, Princeton University.

Subject: Corporate Cash Balances, I914-1943.

December 4. Professor JOHN H. WILLIAMS.

Subject: The Bretton Woods Agreements.

December 11. EDWARD M. BERNSTEIN, Assistant Director, Division of Monetary Research, Treasury Department.

Subject: The Scarcity of Dollars. (Published in The Journal of Political Economy, March I945.)

December 15. Dr. FRANCIS MC INTYRE, Representative of the Foreign Economic Exchange on Requirements Board of the War Production Board.

Subject: International Distribution of Supplies in Wartime.

January 8.    DAVID E. LILIENTHAL, Chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

Subject: Tennessee Valley Authority.

January 15. Dr. OLIVER M. W. SPRAGUE (Professor Emeritus).

Subject: Postwar Corporate Taxation.

January 22. Dr. WALTER GARDNER, Federal Reserve Board.

Subject: Some Aspects of the Bretton Woods Program.

January 26. Dr. WILLIAM FELLNER, University of California.

Subject: Types of Expansionary Policies and the Rate of Interest.

January 29. Professor WALTER F. BOGNER, Dr. CHARLES R. CHERINGTON, Professors CARL J FRIEDRICH, SEYMOUR E HARRIS, TALCOTT PARSONS, ALFRED D. SIMPSON, AND Mr. GEORGE B. WALKER.

Subject: The Boston Urban Development Plan.

March 5.       Dr. ROBERT TRIFFIN, Federal Reserve Board.

Subject: International Economic Problems of South America.

March 9.       Dr. PAUL J. RAVER, Bonneville Power Administration.

Subject: Bonneville Power Administration.

March 12.     Professor ALVIN H. HANSEN.

Subject: Murray Employment Bill.

March 16.     H. L. SELIGMAN.

Subject: Bank Earnings and Taxation of Bank Profits.

March 19.     Dr. LOUIS RASMINSKY, Foreign Exchange Control Board, Ottawa, Canada.

Subject: British-American Trade Problems from the Canadian Point of View. (Published in the British Economic Journal, September 1945.)

March 26.    Dr. HERBERT FURTH, Federal Reserve Board.

Subject: Monetary and Financial Problems of the Liberated Countries.

April 2.         Dr. LLOYD METZLER, Federal Reserve Board.

Subject: Postwar Economic Policies of the United Kingdom. (An article based on this paper and written in collaboration with Dr. RANDALL HINSHAW was published in The Review of Economic Statistics, November 1945.)

April 13.        s. s. PU [sic]

Subject: Fiscal Policies and Income Generation.

April 16.        Professor EDWARD S. MASON, State Department, Washington.

Subject: Commodity Agreements.

April 20.       HECTOR TASSARA.

Subject: The Role of the Central Bank in the Argentine Economy.

April 23.       Dr. ABBA P. LERNER, New School for Social Research, N. Y.

Subject: Postwar Policies.

April 27.       Professor JOHN VAN SICKLE, Vanderbilt University.

Subject: Wages and Employment: A Regional Approach.

April 30.       Professor ALVIN H. HANSEN.

Subject: Postwar Wage Policy.

May 14.         Dr. E. M. H. LLOYD, United Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, British Treasury.

Subject: Inflation in Europe.

May 21.         AXEL IVEROTH, Swedish Legation, Washington.

Subject: Postwar Plans in Sweden.

May 28.         Professor LEON DUPRIEZ, University of Louvain, Belgium.

Subject: Problem of Full Employment in View of Recent European Experience.

May 29.        Professor SEYMOUR E. HARRIS, Professor WASSILY W. LEONTIEF, Professor GOTTFRIED HABERLER, Professor ALVIN H. HANSEN.

Subject: The Shorter Work Week and Full Employment.