WEBVTT

NOTE Herbert Davenport: American Austrian

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:10.360
Today, we have Mr. Keith Royer, who's going to be talking about an early American economist,

2
00:00:10.360 --> 00:00:15.240
Davenport and his, Herbert Davenport and his political economy.

3
00:00:15.240 --> 00:00:22.000
Keith is a PhD student in economics here at Auburn University.

4
00:00:22.000 --> 00:00:28.480
He's a Mises Fellow, of course, and he teaches economics at Auburn, and as a matter of fact,

5
00:00:28.480 --> 00:00:34.480
Keith won the Graduate Teaching Award this year in the department, which is always a great thing.

6
00:00:34.480 --> 00:00:39.480
I always like to see the Austrians racking up those kinds of awards.

7
00:00:39.480 --> 00:00:44.480
So congratulations, Keith, and let's hear your stuff.

8
00:00:44.480 --> 00:00:50.480
Okay, thank you, Mark. Let me start off with, I've been to a number of the Brown Bags this year,

9
00:00:50.480 --> 00:00:53.480
and they all seem to have their own flavor.

10
00:00:53.480 --> 00:01:01.480
I will emphasize the informality of the Brown Bag seminar, also emphasize the seminar part of the seminar.

11
00:01:01.480 --> 00:01:05.480
So speak up if you have questions or if you want to add something.

12
00:01:05.480 --> 00:01:09.480
I'll take a very informal approach to this.

13
00:01:09.480 --> 00:01:15.480
This assignment was originally given to me back in the early part of this year

14
00:01:15.480 --> 00:01:22.480
to decide whether Herbert Davenport was an American-Austrian scholar of the early part of the century.

15
00:01:22.480 --> 00:01:30.720
of the Century. My method of research on deciding this, and I will maybe let everyone make up

16
00:01:30.720 --> 00:01:36.240
their own mind given what I have to present here today and not be decisive myself, but

17
00:01:36.240 --> 00:01:43.080
my method of research has not been to go back and read over all of his works. Because of

18
00:01:43.080 --> 00:01:49.880
time limitations for one, I've gone to the other scholars. I've gone to Mark Blogg,

19
00:01:49.880 --> 00:01:55.960
There's Eklund and Iberia, their text, a guy named Haney, Whitaker, some other history

20
00:01:55.960 --> 00:02:01.720
of thought type people to see what they have to say, where they put him, Schumpeter especially,

21
00:02:01.720 --> 00:02:04.680
how they would characterize Herbert Davenport.

22
00:02:04.680 --> 00:02:06.720
So that's been my method.

23
00:02:06.720 --> 00:02:12.040
If there are any true Davenport scholars here, that probably wouldn't be to your liking,

24
00:02:12.040 --> 00:02:17.920
but as I say, he wrote four major books and we'll talk about that in just a moment.

25
00:02:17.920 --> 00:02:24.080
As an introduction, Herbert Davenport was born in Wilmington, Vermont in 1861. He passed

26
00:02:24.080 --> 00:02:35.080
away in 1931. He received his PhD in economics from the University of Chicago in 1898. He

27
00:02:35.080 --> 00:02:44.260
studied in Paris. He studied at South Dakota and one other place. I can't remember where

28
00:02:44.260 --> 00:02:51.660
and I don't seem to have it written down here, but he studied abroad. He studied here. He

29
00:02:51.660 --> 00:02:57.160
taught at the University of Chicago from 1902 to 1908. From there he was the Dean of one

30
00:02:57.160 --> 00:03:03.540
of the schools at the University of Missouri from 1908 to 1916. And from there he spent

31
00:03:03.540 --> 00:03:09.660
the latter part of his life from 1916 to 1929 as a professor of economics at Cornell. In

32
00:03:09.660 --> 00:03:14.580
In 1920, Herbert Davenport was the president of the American Economic Association, and

33
00:03:14.580 --> 00:03:22.540
I will also emphasize the political economy part of this seminar, and I will quote a good

34
00:03:22.540 --> 00:03:26.980
deal from this AEA address that he gave in 1920.

35
00:03:26.980 --> 00:03:30.780
It's quite telling, possibly.

36
00:03:30.780 --> 00:03:35.740
It's offered by people like James Buchanan that Davenport's relative obscurity, and indeed

37
00:03:35.740 --> 00:03:40.500
Indeed, he is rather obscure even in the history of thought texts that I've found out.

38
00:03:40.500 --> 00:03:46.260
Professors Eaklin and Abert do not have a site that important in their text.

39
00:03:46.260 --> 00:03:50.820
Schumpeter, in his history of economic analysis, has four sites in the index.

40
00:03:50.820 --> 00:03:55.060
He has four page references, but those are small.

41
00:03:55.060 --> 00:04:00.060
You know, just mentioning of a name, they don't go into any extensive detail as to his

42
00:04:00.060 --> 00:04:01.060
thought.

43
00:04:01.060 --> 00:04:08.060
Schumpeter said if he had more time and space, he would gladly do that. Take that with a grain of salt. I'm not sure.

44
00:04:08.060 --> 00:04:28.060
We've got a thousand page book. Percentage wise, James Buchanan has a, if you take percentage, is a more favorable disposition on Davenport, possibly, that he commits two pages of a hundred page text to Davenport.

45
00:04:28.060 --> 00:04:39.060
What was the book that... Cost and Calculation, which I'll speak of here in a moment.

46
00:04:39.060 --> 00:04:47.060
Buchanan comments that Davenport was relatively obscure and had a small following of students in his day,

47
00:04:47.060 --> 00:04:55.060
mainly because he failed to articulate his ideas well, and he had a pestilence toward the idols of the profession of the day.

48
00:04:55.060 --> 00:05:00.260
He liked to badmouth people, evidently, especially Marshall, although some people lump him in

49
00:05:00.260 --> 00:05:03.700
together with the Marshallian analysis.

50
00:05:03.700 --> 00:05:09.420
But as I continue, we'll see some of this maybe badmouthing come about.

51
00:05:09.420 --> 00:05:15.780
Over his career, he did author four books, Outlines of Economic Theory in 1896, Value

52
00:05:15.780 --> 00:05:20.580
and Distribution, which seemed to be maybe the capstone of his work.

53
00:05:20.580 --> 00:05:26.500
I'm going to say that it's difficult mining, but once you get there, it's rather rich.

54
00:05:26.500 --> 00:05:33.020
That particular book in Economics of Enterprise in 1913, and The Economics of Alfred Marshall

55
00:05:33.020 --> 00:05:39.780
published husturously in 1935.

56
00:05:39.780 --> 00:05:48.220
Mark Blog comments that Davenport was a pupil and admirer of Veblen, although Davenport

57
00:05:48.220 --> 00:06:14.060
Davenport sought an economic theory based on prices and excluding the psychological elements

58
00:06:14.060 --> 00:06:19.220
of Marshall and the Austrians.

59
00:06:19.220 --> 00:06:24.580
He was pretty explicit in some of his, like I say, he was kind of nasty at times evidently,

60
00:06:24.580 --> 00:06:30.620
according to Frank Wetter and others, but he was rather explicit and he called into

61
00:06:30.620 --> 00:06:37.540
question a lot of the Austrian doctrine of the time, which may be important in that he

62
00:06:37.540 --> 00:06:43.500
was maybe commenting on Menger and some of the early Austrians, which maybe today's Austrians

63
00:06:43.500 --> 00:07:10.100
At the turn of the centuries, writers such as Cassel and Valraud were attempting to limit

64
00:07:10.100 --> 00:07:16.480
the field of study of economics to something that's solvable by a system of equations.

65
00:07:16.480 --> 00:07:23.800
A separate branch or a competing branch of theory at the time was divergent to this and

66
00:07:23.800 --> 00:07:31.800
wanted to avoid ethical and philosophical complications to get rid of difference between

67
00:07:31.800 --> 00:07:36.100
costs and wants. There were two competing branches at this time. One was this mathematical

68
00:07:36.100 --> 00:08:01.820
His attempt in his economics was to reduce costs to the subjective opportunities foregone

69
00:08:01.820 --> 00:08:02.820
by entrepreneurs.

70
00:08:02.820 --> 00:08:09.820
That sounds rather Austrian. We've got subjective opportunities there and we've got the entrepreneur.

71
00:08:09.820 --> 00:08:15.820
And in fact Buchanan claims that Davenport's emphasis on entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial cost

72
00:08:15.820 --> 00:08:22.820
stem from his criticism of other writers at the time, once again criticism, especially or notably of Marshall.

73
00:08:22.820 --> 00:08:29.820
And Davenport writes that Marshall's analysis of the relationship between rent and cost is so unsatisfactory

74
00:08:29.820 --> 00:08:35.260
Psychology, due to the fact that he has not appreciated that cost is bearing upon supply

75
00:08:35.260 --> 00:08:42.880
is not a collectivist phenomenon, but is strictly an entrepreneurial competition and as such

76
00:08:42.880 --> 00:08:50.100
is exclusively within the sphere of the individual psychology.

77
00:08:50.100 --> 00:08:54.540
Not a page before, at the top of this page I'm talking that he wants to get rid of psychology,

78
00:08:54.540 --> 00:08:59.300
the psychological elements out of economics and halfway down the page he's trying to put

79
00:08:59.300 --> 00:09:07.060
It's unfortunate that in reading through what other historians had to say about Davenport,

80
00:09:07.060 --> 00:09:10.980
you go back and look at some of these references, it's rather foggy, it's rather murky.

81
00:09:10.980 --> 00:09:15.260
He seems to jump around quite a bit, and this will come out at the end also.

82
00:09:15.260 --> 00:09:19.780
I think it kind of shows all the way through this discussion.

83
00:09:19.780 --> 00:09:29.220
So, Buchanan claims embedded in Davenport's value and distribution is a concept of opportunity

84
00:09:29.220 --> 00:09:37.220
and Opportunity Cost, almost as sophisticated as Vickseed's, and he puts Davenport in his Cost and Calculation,

85
00:09:37.220 --> 00:09:45.220
Buchanan's Cost and Calculation, he places Davenport between Vickseed and Knight in development of theory.

86
00:09:45.220 --> 00:09:49.220
So that kind of gives a historical perspective there.

87
00:09:49.220 --> 00:09:55.220
Although Davenport had the idea of Subjective Opportunity Cost in common with the Austrians,

88
00:09:55.220 --> 00:10:01.540
He rejected, and this is the way it's put, and this is the way I kind of caution that

89
00:10:01.540 --> 00:10:06.820
it may be looking at the older Austrians and not necessarily a reformed Austrian school

90
00:10:06.820 --> 00:10:12.740
or however you want it, the Misesian school or whatever, is that he rejected the hedonism

91
00:10:12.740 --> 00:10:23.980
of the Austrian school of the day and their idea that marginal utility was causal.

92
00:10:23.980 --> 00:10:28.820
So he rejects, and we've talked about this in the office earlier, he rejects the idea

93
00:10:28.820 --> 00:10:36.220
that marginal utility causes action.

94
00:10:36.220 --> 00:10:43.060
I think that would be counter to what Austrians would say at the day or even today, is that

95
00:10:43.060 --> 00:10:51.140
marginal utility doesn't cause one to value a good.

96
00:10:51.140 --> 00:11:01.180
I think he disagrees with this, this marginal utility analysis, that marginal utility was

97
00:11:01.180 --> 00:11:04.260
the causing factor in acting.

98
00:11:04.260 --> 00:11:10.460
So you have to keep that in mind, maybe that's a point.

99
00:11:10.460 --> 00:11:17.020
According to Haney, who writes a history of thought book, this idea, this denying the

100
00:11:17.020 --> 00:11:19.700
marginal utility as being causal and whatnot.

101
00:11:19.700 --> 00:11:26.340
This equates Devenport more closely with mathematical price economists of the time.

102
00:11:26.340 --> 00:11:32.280
So we get a very, it becomes very murky, Haney puts him in more with Marchellians, but he

103
00:11:32.280 --> 00:11:37.100
denies himself to be, and he actually criticizes Marshall.

104
00:11:37.100 --> 00:11:44.580
So you get very divergent views as to where this man actually stands in the spectrum here.

105
00:11:44.580 --> 00:11:48.980
Devenport's training was as a classical economist, though he was not at the time nor today would

106
00:11:48.980 --> 00:11:53.580
would be considered a mathematical economist.

107
00:11:53.580 --> 00:11:58.740
Davenport rejects this idea of hedonism, of the calculation of pleasure and pain, of the

108
00:11:58.740 --> 00:12:05.580
Austrian schools and Jevons. These writers at the time tend to put Jevons in with the

109
00:12:05.580 --> 00:12:13.060
Austrians, in with the subjectivism, and Jevons drawing of a marginal, if we can imagine the

110
00:12:13.060 --> 00:12:17.700
demand curve sloping downward, that this is a marginal utility curve. And as you consume

111
00:12:17.700 --> 00:12:23.540
and more along this axis than your marginal benefit decreases, diminishes.

112
00:12:23.540 --> 00:12:28.940
And so this is the idea from, I guess, Dupuis and Jevons that we have this.

113
00:12:28.940 --> 00:12:36.540
And so Davenport rejects this, this particular idea.

114
00:12:36.540 --> 00:12:43.420
And he says that these curves are more, once again, Marcellian in derivation, that they

115
00:12:43.420 --> 00:12:45.900
come strictly from the market.

116
00:12:45.900 --> 00:12:52.500
We draw supply and demand curves strictly given prices on the market.

117
00:12:52.500 --> 00:12:57.100
Strange to figure out, strange to figure out.

118
00:12:57.100 --> 00:13:02.820
Davenport's theory does adopt the entrepreneur's point of view and related opportunity costs,

119
00:13:02.820 --> 00:13:07.220
subjective opportunity costs that I've already alluded to, but he assumes that prices are

120
00:13:07.220 --> 00:13:14.020
given and he assumes prices to be given and makes utilities and disutilities depend on

121
00:13:14.020 --> 00:13:22.360
on the Prices. Instead of marginal utility being the causal factor on prices, it's prices

122
00:13:22.360 --> 00:13:31.900
that determine our utility. I think it's backwards from what Austrians would espouse. And in

123
00:13:31.900 --> 00:13:39.820
fact, I mean, he says it is. This dependency, he comments, works through a volunteeristic

124
00:13:39.820 --> 00:13:44.460
Acquisitive Opportunities, which present themselves in markets.

125
00:13:44.460 --> 00:13:49.220
Now, this point sounds very much like a Kirznerian.

126
00:13:49.220 --> 00:13:55.540
The entrepreneur as not as a seeker of opportunity, but the entrepreneur, I think, as Joseph Salerno

127
00:13:55.540 --> 00:13:59.580
has said of the guy walking down the street saying the dollar bill lay on the floor or

128
00:13:59.580 --> 00:14:03.820
lay on the street that he just sees it from the market and he grabs it from the market,

129
00:14:03.820 --> 00:14:08.980
not someone who, what we would think of as an entrepreneur going and trying to find profitable

130
00:14:08.980 --> 00:14:14.580
of Opportunities." He waits for the market to indicate them to him. Once again, maybe

131
00:14:14.580 --> 00:14:23.580
somewhat backwards from what we would associate with Austrian theory. As commented earlier,

132
00:14:23.580 --> 00:14:27.620
Davenport wanted to read Economic Theory of Psychological Factors of Explanation. To

133
00:14:27.620 --> 00:14:32.780
this end, he commented that the interest rate, and this is, once again, he gets a little

134
00:14:32.780 --> 00:14:37.820
confused, the interest rate is determined by the supply and demand in the market. No

135
00:14:37.820 --> 00:14:44.300
No doubt psychological factors lie behind why people lend and borrow, but this is for

136
00:14:44.300 --> 00:14:46.180
the psychologists to study.

137
00:14:46.180 --> 00:14:50.420
These psychological factors are not within the province of the study of economics.

138
00:14:50.420 --> 00:14:54.220
So he's wanting to keep these psychological factors out.

139
00:14:54.220 --> 00:14:55.460
He admits that they're there.

140
00:14:55.460 --> 00:14:58.140
We're just not going to study them as economists.

141
00:14:58.140 --> 00:15:02.760
Another historian, Whitaker, points out that both Castle and Davenport were associated

142
00:15:02.760 --> 00:15:07.300
with this movement to rid economics of these psychological factors, but they both from

143
00:15:07.300 --> 00:15:12.140
and time to time let these factors slip into their analysis.

144
00:15:12.140 --> 00:15:16.860
This following passage from Davenport's Economic and Enterprise is a good example.

145
00:15:16.860 --> 00:15:24.980
For each individual, consumption stops and saving begins where the advantages from saving,

146
00:15:24.980 --> 00:15:30.620
whatever these may be, make an appeal strong enough to displace present consumption.

147
00:15:30.620 --> 00:15:35.020
So we've got the psychological factors there, he's talking about the psychological factors

148
00:16:05.020 --> 00:16:11.420
When the subjective theorizing turned to wealth and what was to be considered as wealth, Davenport

149
00:16:11.420 --> 00:16:15.860
was fairly modern in his thinking on this particular point.

150
00:16:15.860 --> 00:16:22.020
Davenport declared using the subjective idea, Davenport declared that it was not the economist

151
00:16:22.020 --> 00:16:27.740
place to enter into ethical judgments and therefore the economist could not say what

152
00:16:27.740 --> 00:16:31.860
did or did not constitute wealth.

153
00:16:31.860 --> 00:16:39.860
This is from the Economics of Enterprise. He comments, and I need help. I cannot find this in a dictionary. Does anyone know what Peruna is?

154
00:16:39.860 --> 00:16:46.860
P-E-R-U-N-A. It's evidently a drug of some sort from something I read.

155
00:16:46.860 --> 00:16:48.860
It's a patent medicine.

156
00:16:48.860 --> 00:16:49.860
It's a patent medicine?

157
00:16:49.860 --> 00:16:50.860
Yeah.

158
00:16:50.860 --> 00:16:58.860
Okay. He mentions this, and in another passage I'll read just in a moment, Federer mentions it. I can't find it in a dictionary anywhere.

159
00:16:58.860 --> 00:17:28.860
This is from the economics of enterprise. Pruna, hop bitters, obscene literature, indecent paintings, picture hats, and corsets are wealth, irrespective of any ethical or conventional test to which they may or may not conform. Being marketable, price-bearing, they are wealth. What is the economist that he should go behind the market fact and set up a social philosophy of ultimate appraisals? To the above definition of wealth,

160
00:17:28.860 --> 00:17:58.860
Frank Feder in a 1914 JPE article reviewing the economics of enterprise. He must have been replying to this. Feder was replying to this particular topic, or this particular piece, when he comments somewhat disapprovingly that Peruna, as an example of harmful yet valued products, is administered in large doses, and burglars with their jimmies and loosely

161
00:17:58.860 --> 00:18:07.860
And these women, with their flaunty appeals, appear so often that they make some chapters of this book appear like an evening at the uncensored movies.

162
00:18:07.860 --> 00:18:13.860
So, if nothing else, these guys could write well.

163
00:18:13.860 --> 00:18:23.860
So, Feder in reviewing the economics of enterprise, that's what he had to say about Davenport's work here, or at least in part.

164
00:18:23.860 --> 00:18:39.860
Feder goes on to say that, indifferent to the larger social spirit which has pervaded economic writings and political economy, Davenport characterizes them as if we were still in the days of Nassau Senior at his worst.

165
00:18:39.860 --> 00:18:49.860
He, Davenport, scouts political economy as a pious aspiration, busy picturing utopias, lacking all touch with life, a sheer farce.

166
00:18:49.860 --> 00:19:01.860
And this I think some would probably still comment today that Marshall and some of the others were maybe utopian dreamers looking for zero transaction cost world and what not.

167
00:19:01.860 --> 00:19:07.860
So he may not be completely wrong in that, but he was right, I guess he had a rather biting pen when he wrote.

168
00:19:07.860 --> 00:19:18.860
So Davenport describes contemporary early 20th century economics as a system of apologetics, the creed of the reactionary, a defense of privilege, a social soothing syrup,

169
00:19:18.860 --> 00:19:24.740
Green Syrup, a smug pronouncement of the righteousness of whatever is, with a still more disastrous

170
00:19:24.740 --> 00:19:31.380
colliery of the unrighteousness of whatever is not.

171
00:19:31.380 --> 00:19:37.620
Feder comments in his review that such extravagance and rhetoric is expected from self-trained

172
00:19:37.620 --> 00:19:44.020
zealots such as Henry George or the persecuted revolutionary Karl Marx, but that even they

173
00:19:44.020 --> 00:19:49.020
do not excel in some part of Davenport's language.

174
00:19:49.020 --> 00:19:53.180
So get a taste there for some of his writing maybe.

175
00:19:53.180 --> 00:19:57.700
The next section that I'll hit upon here, I kind of broke this down in sections, actually

176
00:19:57.700 --> 00:20:03.580
this is the last one, broke it down into different topics that Davenport wrote on.

177
00:20:03.580 --> 00:20:10.100
And this is Wealth and Taxation, and Davenport claims in Economics of Enterprise that two

178
00:20:10.100 --> 00:20:20.040
Davenport claims that two-thirds of the durable private basis of income in the U.S. are nothing

179
00:20:20.040 --> 00:20:25.660
else than capitalization of privilege or predation.

180
00:20:25.660 --> 00:20:30.780
So he feels that everyone is either privileged of the privileged class or predatory.

181
00:20:30.780 --> 00:20:35.260
He continues that five-ninths of the durable wealth reported by the census is made up of

182
00:20:35.260 --> 00:20:39.020
privately appropriated social wealth.

183
00:20:39.020 --> 00:20:53.180
These observations, Davenport declared, show the inadequacy of a single tax program.

184
00:20:53.180 --> 00:20:59.600
This reasoning carries Davenport into what Frank Federitz called radical communism, although

185
00:20:59.600 --> 00:21:05.700
in 1913 Davenport claims to have no socialistic sympathies.

186
00:21:05.700 --> 00:21:12.540
Let me read now from his AEA address. This was published in the March 1921, if anyone

187
00:21:12.540 --> 00:21:22.060
wants to look that up, AER, lead article. And this was his address on December 20, 1920,

188
00:21:22.060 --> 00:21:24.420
to the American Economic Association.

189
00:21:24.420 --> 00:21:30.900
I am, that is to say, convincingly, even I suspect dogmatically, a Democrat, in the sense

190
00:21:30.900 --> 00:21:43.900
I believe thoroughly in popular government, in the equality of individuals, in political rights and responsibilities, as also in the high and substantive value of freedom in its own behalf.

191
00:21:43.900 --> 00:21:52.900
I do not, however, ascribe to political freedom any essential sanctity of ultimate or natural or inevitable rightness.

192
00:21:52.900 --> 00:22:09.900
Democracy may easily approach to the worst of all forms of government, in danger of being no government at all, but mere license, disorder, revolution and counterrevolution, in the degree that any people fall short of meeting its severe requirements.

193
00:22:09.900 --> 00:22:19.900
A populace incapable of understanding its own needs, but attempting to rule in its own interest, is almost certain to blunder into its own great harm.

194
00:22:19.900 --> 00:22:33.900
and the Great Harm. It might better rely on such incidental welfare as maybe fall from an intelligent and efficient government conducted primarily in another interest.

195
00:22:33.900 --> 00:22:43.900
He continues on, political democracy is doubtless as readily possible in a collective as in a competitive economic order.

196
00:22:43.900 --> 00:22:51.060
Perhaps, indeed, it is more easily possible in the sense of making call for less vigilant

197
00:22:51.060 --> 00:22:55.020
intelligence in a more collective environment.

198
00:22:55.020 --> 00:23:01.340
We have less vigilant intelligence.

199
00:23:01.340 --> 00:23:08.780
But I am not a socialist for no other or better reason than that I am unable to make out what

200
00:23:08.780 --> 00:23:13.820
the socialist ideal, what is the socialist ideal, the family writ large, the brotherhood

201
00:23:13.820 --> 00:23:32.940
of Man would concretely turn out to be or do, but further I hold with the practical

202
00:23:32.940 --> 00:23:40.340
working necessity of competition and of competition within as well as without the economic field.

203
00:23:40.340 --> 00:23:47.900
Finally that also I seem to myself to know that it is not all wholesome and that some

204
00:23:47.900 --> 00:23:55.580
of its unregulated workings are pernicious and extremely dangerous, not merely directly

205
00:23:55.580 --> 00:24:03.380
to the general welfare but to the very perpetuity of competitive institutions, a regulated competition

206
00:24:03.380 --> 00:24:05.340
I take to be imperative.

207
00:24:05.340 --> 00:24:07.300
Robert Reich, enter.

208
00:24:07.300 --> 00:24:14.660
If competition is to be and to remain a tolerable system, successful competitive institutions

209
00:24:14.660 --> 00:24:26.820
I hold require an intelligent guidance, which so far they've measurably lacked.

210
00:24:26.820 --> 00:24:28.300
It's a little iffy here.

211
00:24:28.300 --> 00:24:32.500
Iffy is, as I conclude here at the bottom of my paper, I'll read one more and then give

212
00:24:32.500 --> 00:24:34.540
you this conclusion.

213
00:24:34.540 --> 00:24:47.940
Higher Inheritance Taxes? Yes, say I, who in order that the competitive system may both

214
00:24:47.940 --> 00:24:55.260
endure and deserve to endure would check economic stratification, would hinder the emergence

215
00:24:55.260 --> 00:25:02.020
of differentials and handicaps. If also the socialist says yes, as directed by his opposition

216
00:25:02.020 --> 00:25:07.460
to Private Property in General, we can so far work together instead of at cross purposes.

217
00:25:07.460 --> 00:25:12.220
So if you're willing to walk the road with a socialist, that's fine. We can do that.

218
00:25:12.220 --> 00:25:17.020
Our differences are not actual. We desire the same particular thing, the thing at hand,

219
00:25:17.020 --> 00:25:22.580
only with different ends. I advocate progressive taxation in general in order to mitigate the

220
00:25:22.580 --> 00:25:28.580
economic inequality that in my view is putting in hazard the political and economic democracy

221
00:25:28.580 --> 00:25:35.740
Policy of the Competitive Order. If to my socialistic neighbor the same policy appeals,

222
00:25:35.740 --> 00:25:41.200
as a step toward the abandonment of the competitive order, it is still true that on either basis

223
00:25:41.200 --> 00:25:45.140
of policy the thing is good.

224
00:25:45.140 --> 00:25:53.660
I conclude, and I will conclude here and take questions, I conclude that it may be claimed

225
00:25:53.660 --> 00:25:57.820
It seemed that Davenport had some ideas in common with the early Austrians.

226
00:25:57.820 --> 00:26:01.060
The subjective opportunity cost idea was there.

227
00:26:01.060 --> 00:26:02.060
It definitely was.

228
00:26:02.060 --> 00:26:06.620
Schumpeter, in his History of Economic Analysis, one of the few places in which he quotes and

229
00:26:06.620 --> 00:26:14.380
does, kind of put him in that camp with the early Austrians because of this idea.

230
00:26:14.380 --> 00:26:19.540
However, if we do do this and you kind of have the entrepreneurial idea, although it

231
00:26:19.540 --> 00:26:28.540
I don't know if we want to call him a fellow traveler, honestly.

232
00:26:28.540 --> 00:26:31.180
If he is an Austrian, he's definitely not a classical liberal.

233
00:26:31.180 --> 00:26:34.260
We generally associate the one with the other.

234
00:26:34.260 --> 00:26:40.580
So I know Mr. Rockwell told me that Murray was going to write, had he lived long enough

235
00:26:40.580 --> 00:26:43.460
to, in his third volume, on Davenport.

236
00:26:43.460 --> 00:26:47.340
I would like to know, I wish I did know what he had to say.

237
00:26:47.340 --> 00:26:57.340
Rothbard's Man Economy and State has one reference to Davenport only, and it's just a reference to a paper that he wrote on costs.

238
00:26:57.340 --> 00:27:06.340
So, I don't know, it would be tough. Tough to call him an Austrian, I'm not sure.

239
00:27:06.340 --> 00:27:10.340
You said he went to school in Chicago?

240
00:27:10.340 --> 00:27:19.840
Yeah. He got his Ph.D. at Chicago and he taught evidently at Missouri, which I think Jeff has discovered that, who was there?

241
00:27:19.840 --> 00:27:25.100
Yeah, F.A. Harper apparently was a student. And F.A. Harper was the founder of the Institute for Human Studies.

242
00:27:25.100 --> 00:27:25.780
Yeah.

243
00:27:25.780 --> 00:27:29.740
And a professor at Cornell.

244
00:27:29.740 --> 00:27:40.180
Who was he? Say, there is not, honestly, there is not a whole lot out there. And from this, I'm not a socialist, but we'll walk together if you want to.

245
00:27:40.180 --> 00:27:44.180
When Buchanan writes about him, does he specifically praise his inheritance tax ideas?

246
00:27:44.180 --> 00:27:49.180
No, no. Buchanan strictly talks about his cost idea.

247
00:27:49.180 --> 00:27:52.180
It's strictly the opportunity, the subjective opportunity cost idea.

248
00:27:52.180 --> 00:27:59.180
And that is, I think that would be, you know, put that block over here in the Austrian School, that's fine.

249
00:27:59.180 --> 00:28:03.180
Like I said though, he's not a classical liberal, that's for sure.

250
00:28:03.180 --> 00:28:13.180
Well, you could call it New York University. Those folks are always looking for socialist Austrians to demonstrate that Austrian economics is for a visa tradition.

251
00:28:24.180 --> 00:28:27.180
What about that? Who does he reference, or what does he say?

252
00:28:33.180 --> 00:28:43.180
I've not seen a reference to Menger in any of the books, to Carl Menger. I saw a reference to Anton. Is that his father?

253
00:28:43.180 --> 00:28:45.180
His brother.

254
00:28:45.180 --> 00:28:51.180
His brother. I'd heard the name, I couldn't place it. But there's a reference to Anton, but not to Carl.

255
00:28:51.180 --> 00:29:01.180
In his book on cost and distribution, he does reference Carl Menger once on the origin of money or something like that, but there's more references to Anton.

256
00:29:01.180 --> 00:29:16.180
I'm curious about this notion of being critical of Marshall. I've read parts of his book on Marshall, and it kind of makes sense now, because he lumps Marshall in with the classicals.

257
00:29:16.180 --> 00:29:28.180
He puts Marshall in with the classicals, and accuses him of just sort of being a mathematizer of Mill, and picking up on Malfus Mill, and making all the same mistakes that they made.

258
00:29:28.180 --> 00:29:34.180
And it's kind of interesting now to know that, get an idea that he wasn't really a classical liberal,

259
00:29:34.180 --> 00:29:39.180
that he could be critical, that he could be saying that about Marshall and I at the time.

260
00:29:39.180 --> 00:29:46.180
Did he teach at Chicago when you said he taught at Chicago? Is that just like right after he graduated or did he come back?

261
00:29:46.180 --> 00:29:52.180
He came back, he got his degree in 98 and then he taught there from 1902 to 1908.

262
00:29:52.180 --> 00:30:07.180
So he was gone for a few years. I got that biographical type information from Mark Laws, who's who in economics. And that's all he had was those years at Chicago and then at Missouri and then at Cornell.

263
00:30:07.180 --> 00:30:18.180
You know, but then he was at Cornell and wasn't Knight, did Knight graduate from Cornell at about the time that he would have been teaching?

264
00:30:18.180 --> 00:30:23.180
And see, there's the, what I was thinking of is in terms of the connection that you can into Knight.

265
00:30:23.180 --> 00:30:24.180
Sure.

266
00:30:24.180 --> 00:30:25.180
Yeah.

267
00:30:25.180 --> 00:30:30.180
That if there was a connection between Davenport and Knight directly.

268
00:30:30.180 --> 00:30:31.180
Yeah, that could be.

269
00:30:31.180 --> 00:30:35.500
both that Knight might have been a student of Davenport.

270
00:30:35.500 --> 00:30:38.180
Yeah, that could be.

271
00:30:38.180 --> 00:30:44.060
Buchanan doesn't make any reference to such a scenario,

272
00:30:44.060 --> 00:30:47.780
but that could very well be.

273
00:30:47.780 --> 00:30:50.660
Keith, not knowing much about this literature,

274
00:30:50.660 --> 00:30:55.140
I know that every time I defend to any of the American economists

275
00:30:55.140 --> 00:30:58.500
from this period, they all seem crazy to me.

276
00:30:58.500 --> 00:31:07.500
They're touting central banking and progressive income tax and anti-trust law, every horrible thing you can think of.

277
00:31:07.500 --> 00:31:20.500
So I wonder if you have to be sort of forgiving in the sense of Davenport's errors, given the profession of the time and the dominant strings,

278
00:31:20.500 --> 00:31:29.500
and sort of look for the good part of Davenport and ask whether or not he was sort of better than his contemporaries, so that's a relevant comparison. What do you think about that?

279
00:31:29.500 --> 00:31:42.500
I don't know. I would, after just reading the excerpt here from, or reading his presidential address, that'd be a little tough for me to make that,

280
00:31:42.500 --> 00:31:49.100
to be that forgiving for a person to be in such a position to make such statements.

281
00:31:49.100 --> 00:31:54.400
I mean, he may have been caught up in the, you know, the progressiveness at the time of the progressive era.

282
00:31:54.400 --> 00:31:56.700
Maybe he's talking about speaking for the profession as a whole.

283
00:31:56.700 --> 00:31:58.100
Yeah, it could be.

284
00:31:58.100 --> 00:32:06.200
I think this point is right in the sense that American economics was backwater relative to, you know,

285
00:32:06.200 --> 00:32:11.800
Really, American economists, on average, were major...

286
00:32:11.800 --> 00:32:15.800
U.S. didn't really become the center of economic bonds in World War II or after that.

287
00:32:15.800 --> 00:32:23.600
In the early 20th century, Vienna and Cambridge and Stockholm, I guess, were the places where...

288
00:32:23.600 --> 00:32:25.900
Those were the real centers.

289
00:32:25.900 --> 00:32:30.500
And America was a bunch of fudges.

290
00:32:30.500 --> 00:32:45.500
Pete, if Davenport called Marshall and others utopians, a pie of sky sort of people, what was his approach to economics? Was he more a Vevlenian Darwinist?

291
00:32:45.500 --> 00:32:57.500
Well, he definitely studied with Vevlen. I'm not sure, throw me the Darwinist, I'm not sure about that. He definitely studied with Vevlen, he didn't want to study the institutions.

292
00:32:57.500 --> 00:33:22.500
What were the tools that you used?

293
00:33:22.500 --> 00:33:34.500
Strictly verbal analysis. I mean, no, no Marshalian supply and demand from what I can tell, using the marginal opportunity cost idea.

294
00:33:34.500 --> 00:33:45.500
He used that, which was definitely Austrian. I'm not sure that I can answer your question any fuller than that.

295
00:33:45.500 --> 00:34:15.500
I was struck in some of the quotations that you were reading. It seems that, if I remember right from the article by McNulty on the origin, on the changing use of the word competition in economics, it was right about this time, when Davenport was writing, when the term competition began to be used by economists in a way different from the common sense notion of rivalry or struggle, which is the way modern Austrians interpret competition.

296
00:34:15.500 --> 00:34:25.500
But rather towards the modern neoclassical version of describing a set of conditions, large numbers of anonymous buyers and sellers and so on.

297
00:34:25.500 --> 00:34:30.500
And it seems like Davenport has that notion of competition in mind.

298
00:34:30.500 --> 00:34:31.500
Of the rivalries?

299
00:34:31.500 --> 00:34:43.500
No, he has the latter. He has the static notion with your quotations about concerns about large accumulations of wealth as sort of deviations from competition.

300
00:34:43.500 --> 00:34:45.500
Well, yeah, and the predation of one.

301
00:34:45.500 --> 00:34:48.500
I may have read those out of context from your remarks.

302
00:34:48.500 --> 00:34:56.500
I would say that once again it just comes from Veblen, I guess Veblen despised capitalism and the accumulation of wealth.

303
00:34:56.500 --> 00:34:59.500
What's your sense of that importance?

304
00:34:59.500 --> 00:35:04.500
I would probably shoot that over and say it kind of picks up on what Paul was saying.

305
00:35:04.500 --> 00:35:11.500
That's the utopia. That's the bad mouth and these utopian thinkers of perfect information and this competitive system.

306
00:35:11.500 --> 00:35:24.380
So, in that respect, and maybe he did have the rivalry idea there.

307
00:35:24.380 --> 00:35:25.380
Does that answer?

308
00:35:25.380 --> 00:35:26.380
I mean, it could be.

309
00:35:26.380 --> 00:35:31.860
I think that might be the utopia that Paul was talking about, these utopian thinkers,

310
00:35:31.860 --> 00:35:36.140
because that's, I mean, we talk about that, this utopia of zero transaction costs world

311
00:35:36.140 --> 00:35:41.300
perfect competition, everybody knows everything, you know, let's get on with the day.

312
00:35:41.300 --> 00:35:48.620
kind of utopia that I think he was actually bad-mouthing that what I was

313
00:35:48.620 --> 00:35:53.540
going to say it seemed to me in some of those quotes when he's talking about

314
00:35:53.540 --> 00:35:58.060
you're speaking of the need for inheritance taxes and the rest of

315
00:35:58.060 --> 00:36:04.860
taxation or state capital yeah my impression was that Davenport claimed

316
00:36:04.860 --> 00:36:09.460
that in order for the system to be competitive certain controls had to be

317
00:36:09.460 --> 00:36:25.460
in place to make sure that. Yeah, but I don't think it was the rival risk. My point is that if that is what he meant, then that gives us a clue as to when the word competition came to be used in the modern way as opposed to the way the common sense was.

318
00:36:25.460 --> 00:36:32.860
It's unclear, though, why he thought that this inequality of income was going to hurt the competitive system.

319
00:36:32.860 --> 00:36:44.860
It could be almost like a Schumpeterian, in the sense that capitalism is trying to sell it and that, you know, the haves and the have-nots are going to go crazy and it's not going to happen now, at least.

320
00:36:44.860 --> 00:36:53.060
He refuses to offer any opinion about whether, what is this, pornography and funny hats and this patent of medicine or whatever.

321
00:36:53.060 --> 00:37:07.060
and he thinks that they all constitute wealth if people regard them as wealth, right, so he doesn't have anything to say about them, but somehow if you get too many funny hats and too much pornography, then you have to take it away, right, under the accumulation of wealth.

322
00:37:23.060 --> 00:37:47.060
Well, one of the things that I think helps clear up some of this, you know, uncertainty

323
00:37:47.060 --> 00:37:52.300
as to what he's saying, because he's wanting to eliminate the psychological, although he's

324
00:37:52.300 --> 00:38:01.020
subjective on cost and apparently he's not proselytizing about the way people choose

325
00:38:01.020 --> 00:38:07.380
or what types of goods they choose, based on another quote, but it seems to me I remember

326
00:38:07.380 --> 00:38:16.840
that he wanted to equate value with price, instead of creating a different category for

327
00:38:16.840 --> 00:38:23.560
Subjective Value and another category for exchange value of price.

328
00:38:23.560 --> 00:38:32.960
He wanted to equate value, it was directly with price, and so I think he understands

329
00:38:32.960 --> 00:38:40.460
subjective value of goods and the subjective notion of cost, but when it comes down to

330
00:38:40.460 --> 00:38:59.620
I can't remember, I don't have it in my notes here, he spoke a good deal about the price

331
00:38:59.620 --> 00:39:09.260
and the market price being, it was a price, I can't say this very well, it would be meaningless.

332
00:39:09.260 --> 00:39:14.140
We talk about price theory, we can easily talk about micro-price theory or whatever,

333
00:39:14.140 --> 00:39:18.340
and his was strictly, what you were talking about, looking strictly at the price as given

334
00:39:18.340 --> 00:39:25.100
by the market, and gaining value from that, yeah, I think so.

335
00:39:25.100 --> 00:39:29.900
What do you mean exactly gaining value from the price gain?

336
00:39:29.900 --> 00:39:37.380
That you, once again, it's not the marginal utility that you cause value to a good, it's

337
00:39:37.380 --> 00:39:47.380
What's the good? Causes you utility or disutility based on price? Yeah, based upon price. Yeah, I mean it comes back, it comes from the market to you.

338
00:39:47.380 --> 00:39:53.380
It's a price that's somewhat exogenous to sort of come from the market and interpret the value based on that.

339
00:39:53.380 --> 00:39:55.380
I think so.

340
00:39:55.380 --> 00:40:05.380
The only thing that's measurable is market price, all these ruminations about what's behind market price are, you know, they're there all right, but who cares about them?

341
00:40:05.380 --> 00:40:17.380
Let's get on with the deal and take demand curves from, take market curves, start with market demand curves and work from there, and stop, you know, messing around with the basis of them.

342
00:40:17.380 --> 00:40:21.380
Does he give any indication of why the demand curve slows down?

343
00:40:21.380 --> 00:40:28.380
Well, for the same reason as Marshall would, I believe, is that we have...

344
00:40:28.380 --> 00:40:36.380
Well, Marshall starts with the individual stuff, and then discards it pretty soon, but he builds up.

345
00:40:36.380 --> 00:40:43.380
Yeah, I'm not, from what I'm saying, I don't know. I can't answer that intelligently.

346
00:40:43.380 --> 00:40:51.380
He talks about it not being the marginal utility curve of Jevons.

347
00:40:51.380 --> 00:41:11.380
Was there much originality in Davenport? It seems like he's just taking other ideas and recombining them. Did he have any of that?

348
00:41:21.380 --> 00:41:26.920
This gentleman, either Buchanan or Haney or one of these guys said of the value and distribution

349
00:41:26.920 --> 00:41:33.940
that it was tedious but you know there was grains there, there were grains of originality

350
00:41:33.940 --> 00:41:39.660
and I think Schumpeter basically says the same thing but then he doesn't you know devote

351
00:41:39.660 --> 00:41:48.100
any pages in his history of economic analysis to his thoughts so maybe you know a long way

352
00:41:48.100 --> 00:41:49.100
to go for a little.

353
00:41:49.100 --> 00:42:04.100
What about the idea of the entrepreneur? That was not a prominent notion in the economy. Schumpeter came out with this book in 1913 or something. He was in Germany. He tossed out the idea of the entrepreneur.

354
00:42:19.100 --> 00:42:24.000
was been sorely misstudied, or understudied, not misstudied, understudied.

355
00:42:24.000 --> 00:42:25.620
So there could be, yeah.

356
00:42:25.620 --> 00:42:27.580
All in line with what Jeff's saying, I think it's,

357
00:42:27.580 --> 00:42:30.300
I've gotten the impression from what I've been exposed

358
00:42:30.300 --> 00:42:33.300
to to have important classes and so on and so forth.

359
00:42:33.300 --> 00:42:34.980
It was almost a marginal utility theory,

360
00:42:34.980 --> 00:42:36.660
and that is a bunch of independent thinkers

361
00:42:36.660 --> 00:42:40.760
coming up with a similar idea at roughly the same time.

362
00:42:40.760 --> 00:42:43.540
And I think that may be where the entrepreneur,

363
00:42:43.540 --> 00:42:45.840
among American economists, he was one of the first

364
00:42:45.840 --> 00:42:48.340
to sort of develop that notion.

365
00:42:48.340 --> 00:42:53.620
and may have been other economists that have developed it better, but the notion was being

366
00:42:53.620 --> 00:43:00.420
done independently and uniquely by a bunch of different scholars at the same time.

367
00:43:00.420 --> 00:43:10.340
Back to Jess for about Davenport putting him sort of in a relative perspective, and I wasn't

368
00:43:10.340 --> 00:43:17.300
actually aware that he was president of the American Economic Association in 1920, but

369
00:43:17.300 --> 00:43:25.100
To achieve that type of honor, you had to be kind of wacky, in some respect, to get that,

370
00:43:25.100 --> 00:43:30.100
to be able to be appointed president of the American Economic Association.

371
00:43:30.100 --> 00:43:44.020
It hasn't changed much, and actually, I think in many respects, it's probably improved to

372
00:43:44.020 --> 00:43:45.020
some degree.

373
00:43:45.020 --> 00:43:50.900
You have to remember, as Jeff suggests, the current state of the profession, most of the

374
00:43:50.900 --> 00:43:57.460
trained economists were trained in Germany, in the German Historical School, or by their

375
00:43:57.460 --> 00:44:07.580
students here in the United States, and of course his major professor was Vevlin, and

376
00:44:07.580 --> 00:44:12.660
many of the prominent economists in terms of the founding of the American Economic Association

377
00:44:12.660 --> 00:44:18.660
were basically what we wouldn't even consider economists nowadays.

378
00:44:18.660 --> 00:44:29.660
Veblen and Ely and Simon Patton and some of these people who just had outrageous ideas.

379
00:44:29.660 --> 00:44:37.660
And the idea that they might appoint a free market Austrian economist just doesn't compute at all.

380
00:44:37.660 --> 00:44:47.740
at all. They would have never considered somebody along some sort of pure Austrian lines, I

381
00:44:47.740 --> 00:44:57.580
don't think. And like I said, in some respects, the American Economic Association improved

382
00:44:57.580 --> 00:45:06.100
after the rise of Columbia and Chicago and New York in the century, but before that things

383
00:45:06.100 --> 00:45:13.340
were pretty bad in the profession and the only thing I've ever seen by that I've

384
00:45:13.340 --> 00:45:19.820
ever read by Davenport is his value and distribution and it it's see it's pretty

385
00:45:19.820 --> 00:45:23.260
good stuff except for some of these things about value equals price and if

386
00:45:23.260 --> 00:45:27.460
you keep that in mind it's it's pretty good pretty good material we've been

387
00:45:27.460 --> 00:45:32.420
working on the at the workshop on the concept of interest and the concept of

388
00:45:32.420 --> 00:45:40.380
Capital, very rough going. Watch out for that workshop. But, I mean, Davenport, Davenport,

389
00:45:40.380 --> 00:45:48.220
yeah, Davenport, from what I can remember, you know, really seemed to have a really good

390
00:45:48.220 --> 00:45:55.860
idea about what the Austrians were up to and the other theorists, the Clark, Bromberg-Bawerk

391
00:45:55.860 --> 00:46:02.340
debates, all that kind of stuff is in there and it's, he's got a good handle on it.

392
00:46:02.340 --> 00:46:11.380
I remember with respect to Beezer and von Boehm-Bawerk in particular, their views, he understood

393
00:46:11.380 --> 00:46:20.540
them as well as we do nowadays and he kind of attacked Beezer I think for the collectivist,

394
00:46:20.540 --> 00:46:29.420
the more sort of collectivist approach to things and liked von Boehm-Bawerk more so.

395
00:46:29.420 --> 00:46:37.420
Of course, on the other hand, I remember those sites to Menger, too, so, difficult to tell.

396
00:46:37.420 --> 00:46:43.420
I would hate to have the summer end without getting into the leader's position of Davenport.

397
00:46:43.420 --> 00:46:45.420
Do you have an opinion?

398
00:46:45.420 --> 00:46:58.420
I'm not well-read in Davenport, but I have read his sections on macroeconomics, which I think he was quite sound, pretty much ahead of his time.

399
00:46:58.420 --> 00:47:27.420
Well, ladies and gentlemen, I guess we'll thank Keith very much for a very tough one.

400
00:47:28.420 --> 00:47:30.420
Thank you very much.