WEBVTT

NOTE An Essay on Economic Theory

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:10.440
Hello, my name is Jeffrey Tucker. I work for the Mises Institute, and it's my pleasure

2
00:00:10.440 --> 00:00:17.480
to sit here today with Professor Mark Thornton, who's the editor, co-translator of a new

3
00:00:17.480 --> 00:00:27.360
book, Essay on Economic Theory, by Richard Cantillon, who lived before the time of Adam

4
00:00:27.360 --> 00:00:35.360
I'm Smith and wrote a wonderful treatise. The Mises Institute has just published a new translation. Welcome, Professor Thornton.

5
00:00:35.360 --> 00:00:39.360
Thank you very much, Jeff. It's a great pleasure to be here with you today.

6
00:00:39.360 --> 00:00:44.360
Tell us first a little bit about Richard Cantillon.

7
00:00:44.360 --> 00:00:53.360
Okay, Cantillon is a very mysterious character. He comes from Ireland, County Kerry. His family lands had been taken by the Protestants.

8
00:00:53.360 --> 00:00:58.840
and so he and his brother left to go to Paris to find work and to find a

9
00:00:58.840 --> 00:01:03.920
livelihood and he ended up in his uncle's bank and eventually taking over

10
00:01:03.920 --> 00:01:11.360
his bank making it very profitable. He was tapped by John Law to be a director

11
00:01:11.360 --> 00:01:15.880
of the Mississippi Company. This is John Law of the famous Mississippi bubble, yes

12
00:01:15.880 --> 00:01:22.600
absolutely and Cantillon was a very bright person and he actually made money

13
00:01:22.600 --> 00:01:28.300
on the stocks as they went up. He made money by selling them short on the way

14
00:01:28.300 --> 00:01:33.480
down and he also made money in a currency transaction taking advantage of

15
00:01:33.480 --> 00:01:40.840
changing values of different currencies. So he's very brilliant person, lived all

16
00:01:40.840 --> 00:01:48.240
over Europe and made a lot of money. And when did the book come out during his

17
00:01:48.240 --> 00:01:56.640
Lifetime? No, it did not. It's written, we think, around 1730, and it was not published until 1755,

18
00:01:57.200 --> 00:02:06.480
which was long after his death. He was supposedly murdered in 1734. Others have come to doubt that,

19
00:02:06.480 --> 00:02:12.560
and his biographer has suggested that he faked his own death to get away from various lawsuits.

20
00:02:13.360 --> 00:02:17.520
Just as today, when you see a bubble and a bust and somebody making money off of it,

21
00:02:17.520 --> 00:02:47.520
Everybody wanted to sue Cantillon to get part of his money back. So it was written around 1730. It circulated in Europe amongst his friends and colleagues until it was finally published in 1755. And that was brought about by the physiocrats who had gotten a copy of it. Had it published under very mysterious circumstances. It was anonymous. It was supposedly published by a publishing house that had gone out of business. And so everywhere you turn in

22
00:02:47.520 --> 00:02:53.360
And what did he look like?

23
00:02:53.360 --> 00:03:00.000
We don't know. That's the one thing I'm working on right now as we speak, is to try to find

24
00:03:00.000 --> 00:03:07.360
an image that I think I have found, but there's no pictures or representations of him as a

25
00:03:07.360 --> 00:03:12.320
man. There's a few written descriptions, but other than that, we don't have anything official

26
00:03:12.320 --> 00:03:13.320
quite yet.

27
00:03:13.320 --> 00:03:28.320
What was in the book that was so controversial or is that why the publication was so delayed?

28
00:03:28.320 --> 00:03:33.720
Well it was delayed because of censorship laws in France at the time.

29
00:03:33.720 --> 00:03:38.980
You had to get government permission and you know economics is something that very often

30
00:03:38.980 --> 00:03:44.580
Government Likes to Cover Up. And this is really the first book ever in terms of economic

31
00:03:44.580 --> 00:03:49.180
theory. And so he wasn't interested in publishing it. It would have only gotten him in more

32
00:03:49.180 --> 00:03:56.260
trouble. And so the censorship laws were relaxed around mid-century, around 1750. And so the

33
00:03:56.260 --> 00:04:02.620
physiocrats who had public standing thought that this was the time to bring it out.

34
00:04:02.620 --> 00:04:06.460
You said it was the first book on economic theory. Is that really the case?

35
00:04:06.460 --> 00:04:14.300
Yeah, that's really the case. I mean, there's economics that's going on prior to Cantillon,

36
00:04:14.300 --> 00:04:19.080
but most of it was mercantilist, which is not really economic theory to speak of its

37
00:04:19.080 --> 00:04:25.280
economic policy, and it's mostly misguided economic policy. You can get some good economics

38
00:04:25.280 --> 00:04:30.940
if you go back to the scholastics, but again, it's not really economic theory per se.

39
00:04:30.940 --> 00:04:34.740
From first page to last, scientific treatment.

40
00:04:34.740 --> 00:04:41.060
That's correct. And that's what you find in Cantillon. It's not unlike a good book on

41
00:04:41.060 --> 00:04:45.660
economic theory today. I mean, he starts off with the very basics and goes through price

42
00:04:45.660 --> 00:04:50.780
theory and develops it systematically until you get to the end of the book where you've

43
00:04:50.780 --> 00:04:59.140
gone through production, distribution, price theory, monetary theory, banking, which was

44
00:04:59.140 --> 00:05:04.660
all brand new, and ending up with business cycle theory. So it's all there, systematically

45
00:05:04.660 --> 00:05:09.420
He laid out from the very basics to the most complex things.

46
00:05:09.420 --> 00:05:14.700
This is why Rothbard called him the founding, what did he say, the founder of modern economics,

47
00:05:14.700 --> 00:05:16.140
I guess is his phrase, right?

48
00:05:16.140 --> 00:05:17.140
Yeah, that's correct.

49
00:05:17.140 --> 00:05:22.060
And actually Murray's essay on Cantillon is what really got me interested in him in the

50
00:05:22.060 --> 00:05:24.340
first place.

51
00:05:24.340 --> 00:05:29.980
And Murray had not only great descriptions of what was in Cantillon, but also a lot of

52
00:05:29.980 --> 00:05:37.460
The Mysteries and his observations about what he thought would resolve those mysteries and

53
00:05:37.460 --> 00:05:43.420
so I wrote about Cantillon for the book 15 Greatest Austrian Economists and then I spent

54
00:05:43.420 --> 00:05:48.320
about the next 10 years trying to unravel those mysteries in detail, the type of detail

55
00:05:48.320 --> 00:05:51.220
that Murray didn't have time to do.

56
00:05:51.220 --> 00:05:56.460
And as a matter of fact, I mean, I wouldn't have had time to do it if I had a regular

57
00:05:56.460 --> 00:06:01.300
Academic Job. I mean, if I wasn't working at the institute and having the time to put

58
00:06:01.300 --> 00:06:06.620
into those kind of mysteries and into the translation itself, which took six years to

59
00:06:06.620 --> 00:06:14.020
complete, and I had the assistance, of course, of Chantal Saussier, who's a French translator,

60
00:06:14.020 --> 00:06:15.820
none of this would have ever come to be.

61
00:06:15.820 --> 00:06:21.020
And I can assure listeners that Dr. Thornton has been absolutely obsessed.

62
00:06:21.020 --> 00:06:31.820
tracking down you know sometimes I we would spend a couple of days trying to

63
00:06:31.820 --> 00:06:36.620
unravel the meaning of a single sentence or a single paragraph and very often we

64
00:06:36.620 --> 00:06:40.340
have to come back and revisit it because you know we would only find the clues to

65
00:06:40.340 --> 00:06:46.660
unravel it later on in the text and so we we use the original French we used

66
00:06:46.660 --> 00:06:49.660
and the English translation by Henry Higgs in 1931.

67
00:06:49.660 --> 00:06:51.660
There's the only other translation available, right?

68
00:06:51.660 --> 00:06:55.660
That's correct. Well, there's also a German translation by Hayek and his wife.

69
00:06:55.660 --> 00:07:01.660
And we consulted that in a couple of instances to see what Hayek had to say about particular points.

70
00:07:01.660 --> 00:07:06.660
And so we had a good set of data to work from.

71
00:07:06.660 --> 00:07:13.660
But still, there's a lot of mysteries that were seemingly took forever to unravel.

72
00:07:13.660 --> 00:07:22.060
on Ravel and there was a case where he discusses a landowner building canals and terraces on

73
00:07:22.060 --> 00:07:27.900
his property and we couldn't really figure that out what he was talking about there until

74
00:07:27.900 --> 00:07:37.420
we ran into a book on 18th century French landscaping and what that actually involved

75
00:07:37.420 --> 00:07:42.380
was lowering the level of land further away from your house

76
00:07:42.380 --> 00:07:46.420
and raising it to a flat level closer to your house

77
00:07:46.420 --> 00:07:49.160
so that deer and other animals couldn't jump up

78
00:07:49.160 --> 00:07:52.660
into your garden and eat all your plants and flowers.

79
00:07:52.660 --> 00:07:55.100
And it was a common technique back then,

80
00:07:55.100 --> 00:07:58.020
but Higgs's translation led you to wonder

81
00:07:58.020 --> 00:07:59.340
what in the world was going on.

82
00:07:59.340 --> 00:08:01.720
Yeah, that seems very strange.

83
00:08:01.720 --> 00:08:05.020
Well, then of course you have the other issue

84
00:08:05.020 --> 00:08:17.860
that Kantian was the founder of the notion of entrepreneurship, you could say, in economic theory, and yet the term doesn't appear in the old English translation.

85
00:08:17.860 --> 00:08:27.860
That's correct. Adam Smith and Henry Higgs, who translated the Kantian's essay in 1931, both used the word undertaker.

86
00:08:27.860 --> 00:08:33.540
And so that's just one instance, but it's a repetitive one where the reader is faced with a term

87
00:08:33.540 --> 00:08:38.700
that just isn't the correct meaning and so one of the most obvious changes that we made

88
00:08:38.700 --> 00:08:45.080
is to put entrepreneur back into the book because he I mean that is one of the key contributions

89
00:08:45.080 --> 00:08:50.820
that Cantillon made it's his whole system of economics is built on the entrepreneur

90
00:08:50.820 --> 00:08:56.920
nothing moves nothing ever comes about in terms of economic theory if you take the entrepreneur

91
00:08:56.920 --> 00:08:58.860
out of the equation so to speak.

92
00:08:58.860 --> 00:09:03.040
You know we talked about this a couple of days ago and in the meantime I should have

93
00:09:03.040 --> 00:09:17.040
I've asked at the time, but 48 hours have gone by, and only now am I puzzling as to how it came to be that the word undertaker replaced entrepreneur. What possible relationship could there be between these two terms?

94
00:09:17.040 --> 00:09:30.040
Well, the word entrepreneur, we're doing some research on this, but the original meaning of entrepreneur was somebody who was a government contractor who built forts and who built bridges and things of that nature.

95
00:09:30.040 --> 00:09:37.040
and the Future. Then it became more of a general notion of just somebody who undertook various projects.

96
00:09:37.040 --> 00:09:56.040
And it was Cantillon who redefined the term to mean somebody who bought in the present at fixed prices but sold in the future at uncertain prices and therefore faced uncertainty and risk, where the government contractor then and now of course does not face risk.

97
00:09:56.040 --> 00:10:00.200
They get their money under all conditions.

98
00:10:00.200 --> 00:10:06.760
So Cantillon changed the word to mean almost the exact opposite and it stuck in all the

99
00:10:06.760 --> 00:10:11.360
early dictionaries after Cantillon.

100
00:10:11.360 --> 00:10:19.840
We see the word meaning what it does today and also very often quoted by students of

101
00:10:19.840 --> 00:10:22.040
Cantillon, readers of his book.

102
00:10:22.040 --> 00:10:27.920
Okay, now I understand that Undertaker doesn't have anything to do with death and graveyards.

103
00:10:27.920 --> 00:10:28.920
That's correct.

104
00:10:28.920 --> 00:10:30.560
Somebody who undertakes an activity or something.

105
00:10:30.560 --> 00:10:33.880
That's correct, but it's very unsettling, you know, for a modern reader to see that

106
00:10:33.880 --> 00:10:36.440
the Undertakers are in charge of everything.

107
00:10:36.440 --> 00:10:40.960
I mean, I can think of some entrepreneurs who probably ought to be called Undertakers

108
00:10:40.960 --> 00:10:44.280
insofar as they're linked up with, say, bailouts or whatever.

109
00:10:44.280 --> 00:10:45.280
That's correct.

110
00:10:45.280 --> 00:10:46.280
Yeah.

111
00:10:46.280 --> 00:10:52.280
Now, you had mentioned that Adam Smith actually quoted Cantillon in The Wealth of Nations.

112
00:10:52.280 --> 00:10:58.280
That's correct. He quotes Cantillon on the matter of par value between land and labor.

113
00:10:58.280 --> 00:11:03.280
Because, of course, value theory was all messed up in the early days and still is to a large extent.

114
00:11:03.280 --> 00:11:15.280
And so Cantillon really straightens out value theory for the early economist and introduces what we call today opportunity cost.

115
00:11:15.280 --> 00:11:20.840
Cost. And for many years, people misunderstood Cantillon's value theory. And I was able

116
00:11:20.840 --> 00:11:26.720
to do some research and show that what he meant by opportunity cost is precisely what

117
00:11:26.720 --> 00:11:34.080
we mean by opportunity cost. And he used examples in his text that are very reminiscent of examples

118
00:11:34.080 --> 00:11:39.120
in modern text. He uses the example of the farmer making the decision of whether or not

119
00:11:39.120 --> 00:11:45.160
to send his child into a craft where you have to spend years learning how to do a certain

120
00:11:45.160 --> 00:11:53.000
and Trade, and you lose all that time, whereas the sun could have been working on the farm.

121
00:11:53.000 --> 00:12:01.800
So it's precisely the modern definition, and Smith references Cantillon, he read Cantillon,

122
00:12:01.800 --> 00:12:06.600
he derived the invisible hand out of Cantillon, of course Cantillon did not use the term invisible

123
00:12:06.600 --> 00:12:13.640
hand, and also David Hume read Cantillon, the physiocrats of course who helped get his

124
00:12:13.640 --> 00:12:21.960
This book published, Turgot read in references, Cantillon and also Kondiak, so all the early

125
00:12:21.960 --> 00:12:26.720
economists read him, although in some cases they didn't even know who they were reading

126
00:12:26.720 --> 00:12:29.880
because the book was published again, anonymously.

127
00:12:29.880 --> 00:12:37.000
So you said he didn't use the word invisible hand, did he have some notion of a self-regulating

128
00:12:37.000 --> 00:12:39.680
society or a spontaneous order?

129
00:12:39.680 --> 00:12:46.400
Yes, he has a model of what he calls the isolated estate where one man owns everything in the

130
00:12:46.400 --> 00:12:50.800
world and there's nothing outside of that and of course the owner has to hire labor

131
00:12:50.800 --> 00:12:58.300
and direct them and so forth and then he changes the model where he leases parts of his land

132
00:12:58.300 --> 00:13:04.280
to individual entrepreneurs who then undertake to grow various crops and raise various animals

133
00:13:04.280 --> 00:13:09.720
and to make various goods and services which are then priced on the marketplace.

134
00:13:09.720 --> 00:13:16.080
So he starts out with feudalism where one person owns this massive estate and then he

135
00:13:16.080 --> 00:13:22.200
develops capitalism by breaking it all up into individual pieces, creating entrepreneurs,

136
00:13:22.200 --> 00:13:23.200
prices and markets.

137
00:13:23.200 --> 00:13:25.800
So he has the division of labor all worked out there.

138
00:13:25.800 --> 00:13:26.800
Oh, absolutely.

139
00:13:26.800 --> 00:13:34.700
In fact, he develops the division of labor much earlier on than all of that.

140
00:13:34.700 --> 00:13:40.400
But as you get further into the text where he's building this model of the invisible

141
00:13:40.400 --> 00:13:46.600
hand, he shows that if demand is reduced for a certain product, the price falls, the farmers

142
00:13:46.600 --> 00:13:52.080
have to adjust, so you've got the price system and you've got entrepreneurial adjustment,

143
00:13:52.080 --> 00:13:57.160
and Loss, all the basic components of what we know of as the invisible hand.

144
00:13:57.160 --> 00:14:02.200
Yeah, that's really remarkable. From your description, it seems like his name ought

145
00:14:02.200 --> 00:14:10.640
to be added to the list of the founders of classical liberalism.

146
00:14:10.640 --> 00:14:16.440
Well he does, he pulls his punches in a lot of areas. He clearly doesn't like government,

147
00:14:16.440 --> 00:14:24.560
government, taxes, national debt, war, things of those obvious natures, but you'll find

148
00:14:24.560 --> 00:14:31.000
them very often coming to a policy conclusion and he'll say, but that is beyond the nature

149
00:14:31.000 --> 00:14:32.000
of my subject.

150
00:14:32.000 --> 00:14:33.000
Yeah.

151
00:14:33.000 --> 00:14:34.000
So he...

152
00:14:34.000 --> 00:14:35.360
Well, Mises says that sometimes too.

153
00:14:35.360 --> 00:14:36.360
That's correct.

154
00:14:36.360 --> 00:14:37.360
Yeah.

155
00:14:37.360 --> 00:14:45.160
He stops at various points where the positive scientific economic analysis ends and where

156
00:14:45.160 --> 00:14:52.320
It goes without saying, I suppose, that you consider him a predecessor to the Austrian

157
00:14:52.320 --> 00:14:53.320
School.

158
00:14:53.320 --> 00:14:54.320
Well, no doubt about it.

159
00:14:54.320 --> 00:14:59.200
I mean, in fact, I wrote an article, it's titled, Cantillon as an Austrian Economist.

160
00:14:59.200 --> 00:15:07.760
Again, very much modeled on Murray's work, but yes, I mean, he's an important influence.

161
00:15:07.760 --> 00:15:11.880
We know that Menger read him, he had a copy of the book, in fact, he had two copies of

162
00:15:11.880 --> 00:15:18.000
of the Book, one of which he gave Hayek, and that became very influential on Hayek's business

163
00:15:18.000 --> 00:15:22.520
cycle theory and Cantillon effects and relative prices and all that nature.

164
00:15:22.520 --> 00:15:27.240
Do you think that book will ever go for sale on eBay, is there any chance of that?

165
00:15:27.240 --> 00:15:28.240
Wow.

166
00:15:28.240 --> 00:15:35.520
Well, actually, the copies of Cantillon's essay are so rare and tightly held that the

167
00:15:35.520 --> 00:15:40.480
first edition is probably the most expensive book in economics, or maybe one of the most

168
00:15:40.480 --> 00:15:43.000
and the most expensive books in the social sciences.

169
00:15:43.000 --> 00:15:44.880
There's currently only one copy for sale

170
00:15:44.880 --> 00:15:47.800
and I think it's for over $65,000.

171
00:15:47.800 --> 00:15:51.000
So it leaves the wealth of nations

172
00:15:51.000 --> 00:15:52.840
and things like that in the dust

173
00:15:52.840 --> 00:15:55.560
as far as the resale used book market

174
00:15:55.560 --> 00:15:57.120
or the antiquarian book market.

175
00:15:57.120 --> 00:15:59.840
It's number one as far as I can tell.

176
00:15:59.840 --> 00:16:02.920
So your new book is a little more affordable than that.

177
00:16:02.920 --> 00:16:04.320
Well, you could speak to that.

178
00:16:07.960 --> 00:16:09.680
These aspects, the division of labor,

179
00:16:09.680 --> 00:16:16.680
and all the things you're talking about. Are they clearer in your translation than in the older translation?

180
00:16:16.680 --> 00:16:24.680
Oh yes, absolutely. We do all sorts of things to improve the book and to make it more readable.

181
00:16:24.680 --> 00:16:36.680
The grammar, the punctuation, the sentence structure, we add abstracts to all the chapters to tell the reader what they're going to get into in the chapter.

182
00:16:36.680 --> 00:16:45.680
And then after we have explanatory footnotes for all the terms and historical characters, because of course, Cantillon's read everything that's available.

183
00:16:45.680 --> 00:16:52.680
He's just talking about all of the economists of the day and criticizing their work.

184
00:16:52.680 --> 00:17:02.680
We had footnotes for various types of money and just everything that the modern reader wouldn't be familiar with, we provide some explanation.

185
00:17:02.680 --> 00:17:26.680
And then again, we also make some, I think, some important corrections in the original translation where Higgs leaves the essay either with error or with ambiguity and we painstakingly work through all of that with our various sources and try to make that as clear and as correct as we possibly could.

186
00:17:26.680 --> 00:17:32.680
This isn't entirely unusual. It's often the case that Translation 2.0 is necessary to

187
00:17:32.680 --> 00:17:36.280
gain a full understanding of somebody's work.

188
00:17:36.280 --> 00:17:41.800
Yeah, that's right. Higgs's translation is what translators would call a literal translation

189
00:17:41.800 --> 00:17:48.120
where he's just going word for word, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph. And what

190
00:17:48.120 --> 00:17:57.080
What you need for a fuller understanding from the modern perspective is more of a wholesale

191
00:17:57.080 --> 00:18:02.000
translation where you're really looking at what was the original author trying to convey

192
00:18:02.000 --> 00:18:05.240
and then rewriting it in that fashion.

193
00:18:05.240 --> 00:18:07.520
We're not writing anything new into them.

194
00:18:07.520 --> 00:18:13.820
We're just both updating it and correcting it so that it can be understood.

195
00:18:13.820 --> 00:18:18.180
With the Hayek's translation, if you were to read it, you would be stumbling through

196
00:18:18.180 --> 00:18:26.700
words, sentences, paragraphs, whole chapters, and just thinking you might get the true understanding.

197
00:18:26.700 --> 00:18:29.420
With our translation, we're hoping it's going to be much easier for the reader.

198
00:18:29.420 --> 00:18:30.420
Yeah.

199
00:18:30.420 --> 00:18:37.820
You know, one thing we left out when we were talking about Kantian himself is his influences.

200
00:18:37.820 --> 00:18:43.200
If you were going to name two or three economic thinkers that had the biggest influence on

201
00:18:43.200 --> 00:18:45.520
on his thought, who would they be?

202
00:18:45.520 --> 00:18:47.840
Well, that's a very good question.

203
00:18:47.840 --> 00:18:51.600
Lord Bolingbroke, who was the prime minister of England,

204
00:18:51.600 --> 00:18:55.720
was a friend of his and a very conservative thinker

205
00:18:55.720 --> 00:18:58.560
in favor of peace and free trade.

206
00:18:58.560 --> 00:19:02.960
And it's often said that his conservative values

207
00:19:02.960 --> 00:19:04.680
were important for Cantillon.

208
00:19:04.680 --> 00:19:11.600
And then there were also some early anti-merchanalist writers

209
00:19:11.600 --> 00:19:20.120
in France, Vabon and Boucher-Guebert and other people, I can't pronounce their names, who

210
00:19:20.120 --> 00:19:25.280
were not economic theorists, but who wrote on economic topics.

211
00:19:25.280 --> 00:19:32.360
And so when he discusses the English mercantilists, it's clear that he is in disagreement with

212
00:19:32.360 --> 00:19:38.120
mercantilist positions, that he doesn't like the English people in general, and that he

213
00:19:38.120 --> 00:19:49.200
He really is highly critical of their work. William Petty and Davignon and Sir Isaac Newton,

214
00:19:49.200 --> 00:19:55.600
who was the director of the London Mint, all very highly critical of those people. But with

215
00:19:55.600 --> 00:20:03.400
the French anti-mercantilist semi-libertarian writers who weren't right on economic theory

216
00:20:03.400 --> 00:20:08.640
but on policy, he was very sympathetic and when he said something negative about their

217
00:20:08.640 --> 00:20:14.380
work, he wasn't as highly critical in his tone. So he did have some influences. He was

218
00:20:14.380 --> 00:20:26.600
extremely widely read in various disciplines in history, ancient history, economics, agriculture,

219
00:20:26.600 --> 00:20:32.840
minting coins, just every time you did have the emergence of the beginnings of an economic

220
00:20:32.840 --> 00:20:37.160
System of Economic Theory growing out of that scholastic tradition in Europe.

221
00:20:37.160 --> 00:20:39.800
Correct. And he did read the scholastics as well.

222
00:20:39.800 --> 00:20:44.280
Sure. So he's digging through all the old Latin treatises and putting a lot of things

223
00:20:44.280 --> 00:20:51.080
together. But still, his work represented something of an intellectual leap forward.

224
00:20:51.080 --> 00:20:56.120
Oh, absolutely. He did read the scholastics because, again, he was critical of them on

225
00:20:56.120 --> 00:21:00.160
a couple of points, although he didn't necessarily disagree with them.

226
00:21:00.160 --> 00:21:00.680
Right.

227
00:21:00.680 --> 00:21:06.380
but again they were you know sort of on the normative rather than on the positive

228
00:21:06.380 --> 00:21:12.860
side but yes there's a tremendous background that he brings to the table

229
00:21:12.860 --> 00:21:18.140
but what he adds to the table is something incredibly significant in terms

230
00:21:18.140 --> 00:21:25.100
of developing economic theory that was what was really the leap of advance and

231
00:21:25.100 --> 00:21:29.100
and that was really, I think, what the contribution is.

232
00:21:29.100 --> 00:21:32.100
Would you say that his book could be read...

233
00:21:32.100 --> 00:21:34.100
Well, let me ask it this way.

234
00:21:34.100 --> 00:21:38.100
How would a modern reader respond to the text that you've produced?

235
00:21:38.100 --> 00:21:41.100
Well, that's a good question.

236
00:21:41.100 --> 00:21:44.100
Hopefully they'll buy it, first of all, and then when they read it,

237
00:21:44.100 --> 00:21:53.100
they'll realize that economics is a systematic, deductive, logical system.

238
00:21:53.100 --> 00:22:01.540
Kantian was big on numbers and histories and dates and testing out various things but his

239
00:22:01.540 --> 00:22:08.260
economics and the development of economic theory is a logical deductive system where

240
00:22:08.260 --> 00:22:15.340
he demonstrates how he comes to various conclusions and why alternatives to those conclusions

241
00:22:15.340 --> 00:22:19.180
are illogical and don't really stand the test of anything.

242
00:22:19.180 --> 00:22:27.180
So you would say that the book is capable of serving as an instrument of teaching?

243
00:22:27.180 --> 00:22:37.180
Absolutely. I think it's, it absolutely, you could teach economics to somebody from the beginning to the end,

244
00:22:37.180 --> 00:22:42.180
and you'd get a good history lesson in the process, and a history of thought lesson.

245
00:22:42.180 --> 00:22:46.180
It would all be interwoven within this new translation, at least.

246
00:22:46.180 --> 00:23:02.180
I mean the old translation is fairly hollow except for the fact that Higgs added some explanatory essays by Jevons and by himself that do provide some context in which we of course did use in developing the translation.

247
00:23:02.180 --> 00:23:12.180
Are there insights in Kantian that Adam Smith, well he must have taken some of them, but did he overlook some as well?

248
00:23:12.180 --> 00:23:42.180
Oh yeah, that's clear. As a matter of fact, I've written an article explaining how the invisible hand comes from Cantillon, and in doing so, I quote a number of modern scholars who on all the various points say that Cantillon really got it right, and then Smith kind of either watered it down or didn't get it quite right after that. So it's pretty obvious to the leading scholars in all those various fields that

249
00:23:42.180 --> 00:23:50.020
Cantillon was much clearer, much more direct and much more complete than both Adam Smith

250
00:23:50.020 --> 00:23:51.460
and David Hume.

251
00:23:51.460 --> 00:23:59.540
A lot of people, I did this paper showing how Hume got his economic analysis from Cantillon

252
00:23:59.540 --> 00:24:04.180
and then various scholars have debated it because they say, well, it couldn't be that

253
00:24:04.180 --> 00:24:08.740
way because Hume's analysis isn't as good as Cantillon's and it should have been better,

254
00:24:08.740 --> 00:24:09.740
right?

255
00:24:09.740 --> 00:24:16.740
But they're basically, Smith and Hume were watering down Cantillon in order to appeal

256
00:24:16.740 --> 00:24:22.620
to a much wider audience and of course, Smith and Hume are famous for appealing to a very

257
00:24:22.620 --> 00:24:29.200
wide audience so I'm not blaming them or chastising or criticizing them, that's just the way they

258
00:24:29.200 --> 00:24:30.200
did things.

259
00:24:30.200 --> 00:24:31.200
Yeah.

260
00:24:31.200 --> 00:24:37.500
They were more popularizers whereas Cantillon was more, would you say, rigorous or scientific?

261
00:24:37.500 --> 00:24:41.960
Very rigorous and it would have been censored. I mean if he had published it during his lifetime

262
00:24:41.960 --> 00:24:49.520
they would have hunted him down and threw him in prison. So yes, he was fearless in

263
00:24:49.520 --> 00:24:55.840
the way that he was writing. He wasn't trying to appeal to the masses. He was trying to

264
00:24:55.840 --> 00:25:04.740
appeal to a very small group of the leading scholars of his day and he lived in Paris

265
00:25:04.740 --> 00:25:21.780
amidst the leading scholars of the day. And he also lived in London amidst the leading scholars of the day. And so he knew Sir Isaac Newton, and he knew Voltaire, and he knew Bolingbrook, and a bunch of other people. You know, Montesquieu was a family friend.

266
00:25:21.780 --> 00:25:30.180
Have them over to dinner? Yes. It really is bizarre, but the mystery of Cantillon is that

267
00:25:30.180 --> 00:25:34.380
he's cut out of all these histories. You can read a two-volume set about Lord

268
00:25:34.380 --> 00:25:39.540
Bolingbroke's life, and Cantillon's never mentioned. He was very secretive, as any banker

269
00:25:39.540 --> 00:25:49.700
of the day was, and was not a member of society, so he wasn't officially in all of these high

270
00:25:49.700 --> 00:25:56.560
Society type organizations, but he was there and he's equal to all the greats of the day.

271
00:25:56.560 --> 00:26:00.940
You can't be the first thinker in the history of thought who's taken up the cause of Cantillon.

272
00:26:00.940 --> 00:26:04.220
Are you one in a long line of champions?

273
00:26:04.220 --> 00:26:05.220
Oh, absolutely.

274
00:26:05.220 --> 00:26:10.600
I mean, and maybe the least in the line of all these champions because, you know, William

275
00:26:10.600 --> 00:26:14.880
Stanley Jevons, one of the contributors to the marginal revolution said, described the

276
00:26:14.880 --> 00:26:17.680
essay as the cradle of political economy.

277
00:26:17.680 --> 00:26:22.920
Joseph Schumpeter thought that Cantillon was one of the great economist of all time.

278
00:26:22.920 --> 00:26:28.360
Spengler, the famous American historian of economic thought, devoted a lot of his work

279
00:26:28.360 --> 00:26:32.320
to Cantillon and published two big articles in the JPE on it.

280
00:26:32.320 --> 00:26:38.000
And then of course Murray and the Austrians have made a big deal about Cantillon.

281
00:26:38.000 --> 00:26:43.640
So yeah, I think in Hayek, of course, thought it was important enough to translate it into

282
00:26:43.640 --> 00:26:44.640
German.

283
00:26:44.640 --> 00:26:59.640
This is where you turn and you look to the real scholars in the profession and you find that they place a lot of emphasis on Cantillon and of course, Bob Hebert, who wrote the foreword for us, we're very grateful for that.

284
00:26:59.640 --> 00:27:07.640
He's a Cantillon scholar and a French economic scholar who's written on a variety of French economists.

285
00:27:07.640 --> 00:27:34.640
He told me that he thought that there was a need for a new translation and he actually mentioned to me that at a conference a number of years back that he had discussed Cantillon and that afterwards someone came up to him and commented on his work and said that there needed to be a new translation, English translation of Cantillon and it turns out it was Shackle who mentioned that to Hebert.

286
00:27:34.640 --> 00:27:42.920
So I think I'm the last to figure out Cantillon, not the first, and a lot of the very biggest

287
00:27:42.920 --> 00:27:49.700
and brightest stars of the economics profession have all come to the same conclusion.

288
00:27:49.700 --> 00:27:53.640
Or maybe you're the one to finally break him out of obscurity.

289
00:27:53.640 --> 00:27:59.240
Well we've solved a lot of mysteries and I think we've brought something forth that even

290
00:27:59.240 --> 00:28:04.360
And the general public will find a lot of insight in there because not only does he

291
00:28:04.360 --> 00:28:11.440
provide full and complete theoretical explanations, but he does so in a straightforward manner.

292
00:28:11.440 --> 00:28:13.280
And it's not all that long.

293
00:28:13.280 --> 00:28:17.280
I mean, he's covering all of economics in a fairly short period of time.

294
00:28:17.280 --> 00:28:22.700
He discusses wealth in chapter one, which is only one page long, where he sort of blows

295
00:28:22.700 --> 00:28:27.140
up the mercantilist idea that money is wealth.

296
00:28:27.140 --> 00:28:29.220
and he does that all in just one page.

297
00:28:29.220 --> 00:28:36.140
Well, I guess what we should be attempting, I guess over the next coming months, we should

298
00:28:36.140 --> 00:28:42.260
run some excerpts of the book in the Mises Daily, but the book is available free online

299
00:28:42.260 --> 00:28:47.200
under the literature tab at Mises, Oregon and also in the store with the beautiful cover

300
00:28:47.200 --> 00:28:49.180
designed by Chad Parrish.

301
00:28:49.180 --> 00:28:50.180
Oh yeah, it's beautiful.

302
00:28:50.180 --> 00:28:51.900
I can't wait to get my hands on it.

303
00:28:51.900 --> 00:28:52.900
I know.

304
00:28:52.900 --> 00:28:54.460
We're all sitting around, where's the book?

305
00:28:54.460 --> 00:28:55.460
Where's the book?

306
00:28:55.460 --> 00:29:03.460
Thank you for being with us here today and for giving us a great overview of this fascinating figure.

307
00:29:03.460 --> 00:29:04.460
Absolutely my pleasure.