Tag: Rees

Categories
Chicago Courses Economists Undergraduate

Chicago. Monopoly course proposal by Abram Harris with George Stigler’s (Dis)approval, 1961

 

 

The brutal honesty of George Stigler’s memo in response to the new undergraduate course proposal submitted by Abram Lincoln Harris at the University of Chicago is somewhat tempered by Stigler’s display of collegial tolerance for a colleague approaching retirement age. But the absolutely gratuitous zinger at the end to “advise our majors to forget it” leaves a dubious taste in this reader’s mouth.

I have included a copy of the biography of Abram Lincoln Harris from the BlackPast.org website.
Definitely worth consulting:  “Introduction: The Odyssey of Abram Harris From Howard to Chicago” by William Darity, Jr. in Race, Radicalism, and Reform: Selected Papers of Abram L. Harris (1989).

______________________

Harris, Abram Lincoln, Jr. (1899-1963)
Source: Abram Lincoln Harris from BlackPast.org.

Abram Lincoln Harris, Jr., the grandson of slaves, was the first nationally recognized black economist. Harris was highly respected for his work that focused primarily on class analysis, black economic life, and labor to illustrate the structural inadequacies of race and racial ideologies.  Harris’s major published works include The Negro Population in Minneapolis: A Study of Race Relations (1926), The Black Worker: the Negro and the Labor Movement (1931), and a book co-authored with Sterling D. Spero, The Negro as Capitalist (1936).  His final book, Economics and Social Reform, appeared in 1958.

Harris was a Marxist scholar and its theories influenced his work.  His The Black Worker was recognized as the foundation for future economic histories and assessments of the black condition.  The Negro as Capitalist argued that non-racial economic reforms were the key to solving black fiscal woes.  He also argued that capitalism was morally bankrupt and that employing race consciousness as a strategic way to enlighten a public was self-defeating.  W.E.B. DuBois described Harris as one of the “Young Turks” who challenged the then existing historical theories about blacks in a capitalist society while insisting upon using modern social scientific methods to further his analyses of African American life.

Born in 1899 in Richmond, Virginia to parents Abram Lincoln Harris, Sr., a butcher, and Mary Lee, a teacher, Harris grew up as part of the black middle class community in Richmond. After high school Harris earned a bachelor of sciences degree from Virginia Union University in 1922.

After graduation from Virginia Union, Harris enrolled at the New York School of Social Work and worked briefly for the National Urban League (NUL) and the Messenger, the leading black Socialist newspaper.  Harris taught for one year at the West Virginia Collegiate Institute (now West Virginia State University) and then earned an M.A. from the University of Pittsburgh in 1924. Harris was appointed head of the Department of Economics at Howard University in 1928 and later completed his doctorate in economics from Columbia University in 1930. Harris married his first wife, Callie McGuinn, in 1925 and later divorced in 1955.  Harris married his second wife Phedorah Prescott in 1962.

In the 1940s Abram Harris, along with E. Franklin Frazier, Allison Davis, and Ralph Bunche, was selected by the Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal as “insiders” to work on his groundbreaking study An American Dilemma which was published in 1944.  Toward the end of the 1940s Harris began to retreat from his earlier work, progressive and race politics, and began to concentrate on economic philosophy.

Abram Harris died in Chicago, Illinois on November 16, 1963.  He was 64.

Sources:
Jonathon Scott Holloway, Confronting the Veil, Abram Harris Jr., E. Franklin Frazier, and Ralph Bunche, 1919-1941 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2002); William Banks, Black Intellectuals: Race and Responsibility in American Life (W.W. Norton: New York, 1996); Cook County, Illinois Death Index.

Contributor:

Los Angeles City College

______________________

[Memo: Abram Harris to Al Rees]

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
CHICAGO 37, ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY

Faculty Exchange
Box 84
Oct 26th, 1961

Dear Al,

I am enclosing a preliminary statement of a course approved by the Policy Committee of the College Social Science Section. It is to be given in the Spring Quarter 1961-62. I wonder if the Department of Economics would want to include this course in its undergraduate offerings?

Sincerely,

[signed]
Abe Harris

Professor Al Reese[sic]
Chairman
Dept of Ec.
Univ. of Chicago

______________________

 

Countervailing Power, Monopoly, and Public Policy

A proposed 200 course in the College
Submitted by Abram L. Harris

The course will attempt to combine theoretical analysis in a survey of the ideas of some leading economists who have dealt with the problem of market imperfections and monopoly along with discussions of the early trust movement, federal anti-monopoly legislation, and some of the problems connected with the current administration of this legislation. Galbraith’s “Countervailing Power” has been selected as a stimulating point of departure.

A technical mastery of theoretical economics is not a prerequisite. One main purpose of the course is to stimulate undergraduate interest in theoretical economics, the history of economic ideas, and the relation of these ideas to current economic policy issues. The course should be open to beginning majors in economics, students who are undecided about a major in the social sciences, and to those who are just curious.

Class discussions are to be organized around the following topics: The Concept of “Countervailing Power”: Old wine in new bottles? Chamberlain on the use and derivation of the concept. Market imperfections and monopoly in some classical and neo-classical writings: Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and Alfred Marshall. The trust movement in the late 19th century and early 20th century in the United States (John Bates Clarke and his student, Thorstein Veblen, on monopoly and “absentee ownership”). The Standard Oil and U. S. Steel cases and federal anti-trust legislation. Recent anti-trust cases: administrative interpretation and application of federal legislation. Marx’s thesis concerning industrial concentration and confirmation of it by the new liberalism of the 20th century. The extent and measurement of industrial concentration (Stigler, Nutter, Adelman, Adams, Wilcox, etc.). The ideal or goal of government (federal) policy and practice: monopoly or competition?

A term essay will be required of all students who take the course for credit. The essay may take the form of a review, e.g., Berle’s Twentieth Century Capitalist Revolution, Mason’s The Corporation in Modern Society, Chamberlain’s Labor Union Monopoly or may deal with some topic, relevant to the course, selected by the student in consultation with the instructor.

P.S. The content of the course may appear be heavy and, probably, cannot be entirely covered in a single quarter. The layout will have, no doubt, to be tailored as we proceed to give the course for the first time.

October 1961.

______________________

[Memo Al Reese to George Stigler]

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
DATE: Oct. 31 [1961]

TO: George Stigler

FROM: Al Rees

IN RE: Proposed Course by Abe Harris

What is your reaction? Please return his note and proposal when you have finished with them.

[signed]
Al

______________________

 

[Carbon copy of Stigler response]

[DATE:] 11/1/61

[TO:] Al Rees, Chairman                 [DEPARTMENT:] Economics

[FROM:] George J. Stigler

[IN RE:] propose 200 level course in the College by Abram L. Harris

Dear Al:

            This new course of Abe Harris arouses no enthusiasm on my part. It sounds like a protracted bull session, in which large ideas are neither carefully analysed nor empirically tested.

            Even if this is a correct prediction, it leaves open the question of our listing it. Abe is a nice guy, only about 3 years from retirement, and it serves no good purpose to hurt his feelings. My own inclination would be (1) to list it, with explicit proviso that it is only for as long as he teaches it, and (2) advise our majors to forget it.

Source: University of Chicago Archives. George Stigler Papers, Box 3, Folder “U of C, Miscellaneous [red folder]”

Image Source: Abram Lincoln Harris from BlackPast.org.

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
Chicago Economists

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

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

______________________

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

_____________________

15 Latham Road
Cambridge, England
October 28, 1953

Dear Ted [Theodore W. Schultz]:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our very best to everyone.

 

Yours,

[signed]

Milton

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

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